.32.?
.: I.

it! E! .
.. 3...”. i...
F l
Luna.

1.
f l.- f...

CHIC!

 

 

1;}
’,_.p...4r:«yA ‘

1.. 0...}?

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

a

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

NEGOTIATING WRITING, LITERATURE, AND THE NEW
LITERACIES: EXAPNDING AND MAINTAINING BOUNDARIES IN
A 9TH GRADE ENGLISH CLASSROOM

presented by

J. DAVID GALLAGHER

has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for the
PhD. degree in Counseling, Educational
Psychology and Special
Education

 

 

Q/Wc t-

/ Major Professor‘s Signature
6 ., 2 S‘— 07

Date

MSU is an affinnative-action, equal-opportunity employer

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 p1CIRC/DateDue.indd-p.1

 

NEGOTIATING WRITING, LITERATURE, AND THE NEW LITERACIES:
EXAPNDING AND MAINTAINING BOUNDARIES IN A 9TH GRADE
ENGLISH CLASSROOM

By

J. David Gallagher

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education

2007

.
' ~.‘ a ,a' "Pu‘i

 

 

w
\

n

' r

 

I): V,-
-.~.__~. 9..
‘i- I- ‘.-.‘

u d"\-L\
“ I
in.

..
“g ‘ ‘

‘NA,

v N.
.I .
T) f-‘¢;‘_
,.. ‘

g "‘i‘.“
- -,.

..

‘ 7-H 57‘
u

._ ‘

‘l 4.; .

\ u 4‘ ' .

3.“

.

V "‘ -—

4.,‘_

R“
,‘ “V
‘ w: 1-

‘ \

-‘.- .

M ,\ --,
“#5.:
T'
‘:
:‘_
LA ‘1.
’N \' u.

ABSTRACT

NEGOTIATING WRITING, LITERATURE, AND THE NEW LITERACIES:
EXAPNDING AND MAINTAINING BOUNDARIES IN A 9TH GRADE ENGLISH
CLASSROOM

By

J. David Gallagher

Scholars have highlighted the changing contexts of literacy education in recent
times, emphasizing the role of new information technologies, an overwhelming
abundance of visual texts, and the increasing cultural and linguistic diversity of today’s
classrooms. As a result of these changes, the language classroom becomes a place where
these definitions and practices of literacy become paramount, where what it means to be
literate, to read, to write, to make meaning, are contested and played out as they are co-
constructed in the classroom. This ethnographic case study examined the construction of
English and literacy in a ninth grade English classroom, as the students and teacher
negotiated what counted as valued texts, and reading and writing practices. Data
collection consisted of 8 months of classroom and out-of—classroom ethnographic
observations, semi-structured interviews, and artifact collection. The purpose of the data
collection was to understand the texts and practices, the influences and processes at play
in the construction of literacies, as well as the role of the teacher and students in this co-
construction process.

The findings of the study suggest that the teacher and the students engaged in the

expansion and maintenance of the boundaries of what counted as texts, reading and

b "\ _' "CV‘N'IR “A

 

v
.r“ "
v 1 ,al'
fi' “.55- d
c

I
I
o Ira-fl

,h'J‘.II -
19”" '3
, ub
'.
:4- - a v- .
u‘..1-.:I.n -.
. s

M}. .

-. | | --

‘ 5.. ._ r.»
.

7. u; ’51
A.,u.‘ l~\

\

 

writing, as they became actors in the processes of dialogically constructing the practices
of the English classroom. The findings from this study point to two important aspects of
the integration process and broadens our understanding of the relationship between
students’ literacies they engage with in their everyday lives and those that schools
promote. First, the teacher (and the students) were involved in the processes of
expanding as well as maintaining the official practices of the classroom. Second, the
students contributed to the integration of students’ literacies in ways that are often
overlooked in the literature. These two aspects of the integration process provide
evidence that the “bridging” of in-school and out-of-school texts and practices is a
complex, fluid, and contested process. The research findings suggest implications for
future research in curriculum theory, literacy development as it is conceptualized in and

out of schools, and insights on pre-service and in-service teacher education.

DEDICATION

To my parents, Jim and Diane Gallagher
To my wife, Amy Buckingham

To my grandmother, Elizabeth Ann Gallagher, who always knew I would earn my Ph. D.

iv

 

 

‘-
.
.'v
5. ‘\..

u.’_. v‘

v, s..."
—bn.»\. ,

 

 

I- -
M‘
I'LL-
I. ‘
b
h._. ,
N. '.‘°“
:‘1 ‘

 

 

 

 

 

5. r
, ‘
I. a. '.
' In.
\.\\
‘-
~."'H‘ "
~.~ h
‘J, ;
.H.‘
'.
\_«‘~-
'5.
.\_'\ ‘
ATM-
V. A.
f‘» .'

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The past six years have been full of excitement and hard work. I am grateful to
have the many people in my life during this journey. Their support and guidance touched
many parts of this project.

First, I would like to thank Mrs. Oakley and the students in her 9th grade English
class for allowing me a glimpse into the activity of the classroom and the complexity of
their lives. They welcomed me graciously into the group as a visitor, and I'soon was
treated like family. Each side conversation, class discussion, and interview helped make
this study as rich and meaningful as it could be. I only hope that I was able to capture the
spirit, energy, and creativity of the day-to-day activity of the classroom in the way I
experienced it.

I would also like to thank my dissertation director, Ernest Morrell, for his
continued support and guidance from the initial stirrings of the project to the final
writings of the text. His dedication to the ideas and the process remained consistent
throughout the entire project. I cannot thank him enough for his mentoring and loyalty
that he showed me. His passion and commitment to education is inspirational and will
continue to inspire me throughout my career.

My advisor, Jack Smith, deserves my thanks for providing support throughout the
entire process. From my first course in the program, to the planning of the defense, his
guidance allowed for a successful program and dissertation. In addition, I would like to
thank the committee members for providing encouragement and critical comments at
various times important to the project and my future work. Deserving much of my

appreciation are Elizabeth Moje, Mary Juzwik, Nell Duke, and Matthew Kohler. I would

 

.n w”

,‘l

.u u

‘
LI

 

% 9
r
"- 5-5..

9-
a-‘\ .’
"““ is s
- .9. u b

‘._. A

.. . '
err. o“ ,
-~A\_

 

.i..

 

 

 

also like to thank several faculty members who have been instrumental in shaping my
intellectual life: Vicki Purcell-Gates, Anne Haas Dyson, Michael Pressley, Patricia
Edwards, Susan Florio—Ruane, Patrick Dickson, Punya Mishra, Carol Sue Englert, Yong
Zhao, Chris Wheeler, and Linda Anderson, and the many other faculty members from
Michigan State University.

I am also grateful for the friends and colleagues whose conversations have led to
the grth of ideas that helped shape this project. I grew from my friendship and many
of my conversations with Stephen Vassallo. His thoughtful questions about theory and
research proved to be invaluable throughout the entire process. Also deserving my
thanks are Bo Yan and Natalia Collins, who have been some of the greatest of friends
with which to learn. Also, this would not be possible without the help from the many
other friends and colleagues from Michigan State, including: Kristen Perry, Leigh Hall,
Julia Reynolds, Jodene Kerston, Les Burns, Lisa Raphael, Stephanie Kendell, Kathryn
Dirkin, and Brian Collins, the TB 150 and TB 250 instructors, those with the Cultural
Practices of Literacy, Early Literacy, and Stepping Stones projects and the many other
graduate students with whom I had the opportunity to work.

I am also very appreciative of the guidance and friendship I have received from
my former English teacher and coach, Rich Kent. The days in Room 109 helped lay the
foundation for my scholarly ambitions, and I thank him for his guidance and
encouragement throughout the process.

I also wish to thank the Mount Saint Mary College community and the Division

of Education for their understanding and support in the final stages of this project.

vi

 

 

-;I 33'
I.»‘ \L.
r "'"r"
‘L -...-L

“.2. .,._,..

‘1“..4.» ..

I
t-‘-;¢_}. a
L..-bnb— .

 

 

 

In addition, the support of my family has been so important during this process.
They seemed to know when to talk about the dissertation and when to avoid talking about
it. Sometimes I wonder how this process was so smooth, and I know much of it has to do
with their belief and support in me and my work.

Finally, I owe more than I can express to Amy Buckingham, my wife. She
listened and supported me during all the peaks and valleys, and asked important questions
that helped guide the development of the project. She grew with me as this project
evolved. She read drafts on her vacation, stayed up late into the night going over
chapters when I had little energy left, and gently pushed as any skillful editor could have.

I truly cannot thank her enough.

vii

 

 

u-o.\..

 

:7”

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER 1 ....................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................... 1
Literacy as a Social Practice ................................................................................ 6
Literacy and English in New Times .............................................................................. 11
Multimodality and the New Literacies ..................................................................... 11
English in New Times ........................................................................................... 16
Negotiating Literacies: From Bridging Literacies to Expanding Boundaries .............. 21
Bridging Out-of-SchoolLiteracies with Classroom-Based Practices ....................... 21
Maintaining and Expanding Boundaries: Toward a Theory of Negotiating Literacies
................................................................................................................................... 26
Statement of Purpose .................................................................................................... 30
CHAPTER 2: ............................................................................. 33
METHOD AND CONTEXT OF THE STUDY ............................................................... 33
Methodology ................................................................................................................. 33
Setting and Participants ................................................................................................. 34
The Research Site ..................................................................................................... 34
The Class and the Classroom .................................................................................... 36
The Teacher .............................................................................................................. 39
The Students .............................................................................................................. 40
Marcus......, ............................................................................................................ 42
Brianna .................................................................................................................. 42
Cadence ................................................................................................................. 43
Stephen .................................................................................................................. 43
Joshua .................................................................................................................... 44
Researcher’s role ....................................................................................................... 44
Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................................... 46
Classroom Observations ........................................................................................... 47
Collection of Artifacts ............................................................................................... 47
Interviews .................................................................................................................. 48
Out-of-Class Observations ........................................................................................ 50
Data Analysis Procedures ............................................................................................. 51
CHAPTER 3: .................................................................................................................... 55
CONSTRUCTING ENGLISH: THE NEGOTIATION OF TEXTS IN NEW TIMES 55
The Official Literary Texts of the Formal Curriculum ................................................. 57
Maintaining Official Texts ............................................................................................ 6O
Curricular Decisions and Developing “Tombstones” .............................................. 60
Values and Beliefs Associated with Official Texts .................................................. 63
The Expansion of Texts through the Teacher’s Curriculum ......................................... 67
Graphic and Print texts: Cartoons and Comic Strips ................................................ 68
Film Texts ................................................................................................................. 73

viii

 

,.
\A.<I‘ l‘

P“

.-
I
m

E1135
R:~
E1;
\

Eli 3K4... o

HR»: nil . H.

 

Newsprint .................................................................................................................. 73

Multimodal (and Multicultural) Experiences ............................................................ 74
Expanding Texts: Negotiating Curricular Decisions .................................................... 76
Students’ Personal Literacy Texts: Texts as Resources for Meaning Making and
Expanding Boundaries of what Counts as Texts .......................................................... 77

Resources as a Scaffold: The case of popular movies and television shows ............ 78

Expanding Notions of Appropriate Texts: The case of The Onion .......................... 79

Expanding Valued Practices: The case of online dictionaries .................................. 83
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 85

CHAPTER 4: .................................................................................................................... 87
READING AS “9T" GRADERS”: NEGOTIATING BOUNDARIES AND IDENTITIES
.......................................................................................................................................... 87
Teacher-Led Shared Reading and Literature Discussions ............................................ 87
The “Reading Assignment”: Reading of School Texts Outside of Class ..................... 93
Expanding and Maintaining the Boundaries of Reading .............................................. 98

Resisting Reading as a Solitary Practice ................................................................... 99

Expanding Discussion Topics: Texts as Springboards (Part 1) .............................. 101

Making Student Topics Central: The Case of Brianna. .......................................... 102

Maintaining Reading as Close Analysis: Texts as a Springboard (Part H) ............. 106
Negotiating Being a “Reader” .................................................................................... 110

Being a “Reader”: Books and Pleasure ................................................................... 110

Being a “Reader”: The Case of Marcus (Part I) ..................................................... 112

“I’d rather clean my room than read a book”. ........................................................ 112

Finding Space within and through the Boundaries of the “Reader”. ...................... 113

Being a “Reader”: The Case of Marcus (Part H) .................................................... 116

Summary: Marcus as a “Reader” ............................................................................ 119
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 120

CHAPTER 5: .................................................................................................................. 122
WRITING AND TEXTUAL PRODUCTION: MAINTAINING CONVENTIONS AND
EXPANDING BOUNDARIES ...................................................................................... 122

Representing and Responding to Literature ................................................................ I22

Responding to Literature in Essays ......................................................................... 123

Expanding Response Texts: Multi-genre Texts ...................................................... 123

Expanding Response Texts: Print/Visual Multimodal Texts .................................. 125

Maintaining Print and Content in Multimodal Texts .............................................. 131

“It’s almost like writing notes to each other, but using the literature too”: Hybrid

Writing Practices and Opportunities for Expansion ............................................... 133
Formal Writing: Maintaining Official Writing Practices ............................................ 139

‘Being’ Verbs and “Being” Intelligent in the Writing Lab ..................................... 140

Rubrics and Outlines: Regulating Conventions in the Writing Lab ....................... 143
Personal Writing ......................................................................................................... 145

Mrs. Oakley’s Poetry: An Introduction to Being an Author ................................... 146

Students as Poets/Authors/Designers ...................................................................... 148
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 156

ix

CHAPTER 6: .................................................................................................................. 157

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ...................................................................... 157
English Texts and Practices in “New Times” ............................................................. 157
Negotiating Boundaries of Literacy and English ........................................................ 161
Processes of Maintaining and Expanding ............................................................... 163
Students as Participants in the Negotiation of Literacies ........................................ 167
Looking Ahead: Implications for English and Literacy Teaching and Practice ......... 169
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 172

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 190

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure l. Joshua’s Poem with Mrs. Oakley’s Comments ................................................... 2

Figure 2. Comparison of Proficiency on the State Standardized Assessment (2003-2004)

........................................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 3. Course Description in “English Course Offering” Pamphlet ............................ 37
Figure 4. Participating Students’ Sex, Ethnicity, and Time Enrolled in the Class ........... 41
Figure 5. Assigned Novels, Plays, and Short Stories, in Order in which they were StudieSd
........................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 6. How to Succeed on Literature Quizzes ............................................................. 97
Figure 7. Essay Questions for the At—Risk Assessment ................................................... 106
Figure 8. Character Reflections for To Kill a Mockingbird ........................................... 124
Figure 9. Two Frames of Stephen’s Old Man and the Sea “Reduction” Text ................ 126
Figure 10. James’ “Turning Point” Text ......................................................................... 128
Figure 11. Brianna’s “Turning Point” Text .................................................................... 129
Figure 12. Cadence’s First “Novel Buddies” Letter to Skye .......................................... 135
Figure 13. A Section of Cadence’s Online journal ......................................................... 137
Figure 14. A Section of Cadence’s Third “Novel Buddies” Letter to Skye ................... 138
Figure 15. Outline Students used for Expository Essays Written in Writing Lab .......... 144
Figure 16. Skye’s Poem Dedicated to Her Grandmother ............................................... 148
Figure 17. Marcus’ Poem about His Sister ..................................................................... 150
Figure 18. One of Ella’s “Turning Points” ..................................................................... 152
Figure 19. Peer Comments for Ella’s “Turning Point” Text ......................................... 155

xi

1’

C
0" ‘\
.ogn ‘

.'_,.

 

1

3‘1; r,
. ,1
.
r.
'. .111,
;

. “\\

I

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW

It is late February and the ninth grade class has dedicated two weeks to reading
and discussing several poems in class. The teacher, Mrs. Oakley], shared poems from a
variety of sources as part of their poetry unit. The poems were by contemporary poets
and about themes related to family, rites of passage, and personal loss of some kind. One
of the poems that the class discussed was an excerpt of a choreopoem from a
contemporary African American poet, Ntozake Shange, titled, “For Colored Girls Who
Have Considered Suicide/When the Rainbow Is Enuf” (1975) (see Appendix A). The
students were especially surprised with the way in which Shange played with conventions
of standard print within her choreopoem (e. g., waz, enuf, &, yr).

After reading the poems, Mrs. Oakley assigned the students to write a poem about
one of the themes they had been focusing on in the poetry unit (e. g., family, rites of
passage, or personal loss). The poem had to be‘30 lines long and dedicated to someone.
Joshua wrote his poem about the relationship with his brothers, to whom he dedicated his
poem (see Figure 1). Mrs. Oakley passed the poem back to Joshua with a score of 35 out
of for his lack of “specifics regarding [his] relationship” and for misspellings. Upon
receiving the poem, Joshua confronted Mrs. Oakley, pleading to her that his misspellings
were intentional, something he did purposefully. Laughing, Mrs. Oakley said that she
“was not buying that, ” and did not reconsider Joshua ’s grade. As he walked back to his
desk, I asked him if he really intentionally misspelled the parts of the poem. Joshua

replies, “ Yeah, but she doesn’t buy it. ”

 

' All of the names used for the people and places in this study are pseudonyms.

Figure l. Joshua’s Poem with Mrs. Oakley’s Comments

Mme Ie the Beet, Sometimes

I

lyBrotherIeeverylhhgmdnothlngtom.
Yheleejerkmoetthetlmeieeetilletandingmyetety.

Bymyeldewehelpeedtother,

Reellyhele whenl'iewmtetobe,

Othertlmee ) '
Thelongerwe eeoh lhemoreweerjoyeediothereoorrpmy,
Hethinkehecmrep,but' thenme

Eechtlmelwekelflndhi minginmyfeoebeceusehethinluits
Reeliyooolceueehe eleependlovee taking thetaway
lthinkheiethebimeetlazygfl

Sohemuetthinkthesane

) 5
11m: ‘bling may works
11' me when he needs something
Eveytlme i need helphe;snowheretobefound

But he is awesome I“, w [Willa WW
Everyday I wait 2 k to him

School, I can't

To have .1 awesome like him

  

I
So all in all

0- forellendellforone
4:94 fiend

Thebeetbrothere

lnthewortd
Mymomieluokytoheveue
Everyoneeayswelookalot alike
Soeotuellylhevetwobrothere.butloen'tdedicetethietooneofmemeo

“XIII. 3723/); own a aée/iH/p/lo

0}” 130/] o/imy
23.12,. .01. ,. a... Manx

\ ,
SW .. -97.. [5.4.1
ti)” (Brothers ' names)
.J/lalym- Mp Ae/ '

While some of his spelling and grammatical “errors” were likely unintentional

 

(e.g., “belive who luck,” “revary”), Joshua navigated the constraints of the official

writing practices of the classroom, pushing the boundaries of what was appropriate and

acceptable in the classroom, and what counted as the official conventions of the writing
practices of the classroom. Having chosen to create a poem with each letter of the title
starting each line, Joshua adjusted the message of his poem to find a balance with the
form of his poem (e. g., “Y” instead of “why”). Additionally, Joshua’s spelling and
grammatical decisions often reflected writing consistent with his texting, chat, and email

,9 6‘

practices (e. g., “hes, nice 2 me”). Integrating his digital resources into this official
writing practice was met with some resistance, as the official conventions of the
classroom were ultimately maintained by the teacher. However, as mentioned earlier,
Mrs. Oakley provided a model of a poet (i.e., Ntozake Shange), who’s choreopoems
challenged the conventions of official genres and languages, allowing for a negotiation
with the official practices of the discipline and of the language.

This tension and struggle that is modeled in Shange’s choreopoem and is
highlighted in Joshua’s “misspellings” become illustrative of the joint negotiation of what
it means to be an English student and to read and write in the English classroom
(Nystrand, Gamoran, Kachur, & Prendergast, 1997). Mrs. Oakley, Joshua, and the other
students in the class negotiated what counted as appropriate and privileged literacy
practices in the 9th grade classroom. This process of negotiating the literacy practices of
the classroom was essential to the curriculum and instruction in the classroom, and the
learning possibilities for the students.

Ethnographers of literacy and those scholars studying literacy as a social and

cultural practice have illustrated the ideological model of literacy. Street argues that

literacy,

is always contested, both its meaning and its practices, hence particular versions

of it are always ‘ideological’, they are always rooted in a particular world-view

and desire for that view of literacy to dominate and to marginalize others (Street,

2001a, p. 7-8).

Street argues that when researching literacies (community, local, and classroom)
using an ideological model lens, the contested ways in which literacy is understood and
practiced becomes a central point of analysis. In this way, what is taught and learned
depends on and is situated in the conceptions of literacy held by a variety of people (e. g.
policy makers, administrators, and the teacher), as well as whether it is refuted, adopted,
or misunderstood by the students in the classroom. Therefore, within this line of
research, understanding the joint negotiation of literacy practices between the teacher and
students in the classroom, and the constructions of literacy, are of utmost importance
(Caimey, 2000). The classroom becomes its own culture, with its own “dynamic system
of values, beliefs, and standards, developed through understandings which the teacher
and the students have come to share” (Au, 1993, p. 9). As the teacher and students
negotiate the literacies of the classroom, they bring with them their own purposes, beliefs,
and conceptions of literacy in interaction with those of the teacher and institution of
schooling to co-construct the negotiated literacy practices of the classroom (D. Bloome,
Carter, Christian, Otto, & Shuart-Faris, 2005).

The purpose of the following ethnographic case study was to examine the
negotiation of literacies as they were constructed within one ninth-grade introductory

English classroom. The main research question and the sub—questions that guided my

study were as follows: How do the teacher and students negotiate the literacy practices
of one secondary school English classroom during the school year?

0 What does it mean to learn English in the classroom? How do the texts and
practices that the teacher designs for the students construct what it means to be a
reader and a writer in the classroom?

0 How’do the students respond to what it means to learn English as they co-
construct the practices of the classroom? What textual resources do students draw
upon in order to help shape what it means to be an English student and to learn
English?

Designed to examine the literacy practices in the context of one high school
English classroom, this study focuses on the joint negotiation of literacy practices
between the classroom teacher and students, and the shaping of literacy practices in the
current times of changing technologies, growing cultural diversity, and increasing
pressures for standards and assessments (The New London Group, 1996). As a result of
these changes, the English classroom becomes a place where these changes become
paramount, where what it means to be literate, to read, to write, to make meaning, are
contested and played out in a co-construction of literacy practices. Of particular interest
was the role the students’ personal (i.e., out-of-school) literacies played in the negotiation
of literacy practices of the classroom. These literacy resources, which are often
unrecognized as literacies in the classroom (Knobel, 1999; Mahiri, 2004; Moje, 2000),
played an integral role in the shaping of classroom practices.

To set the context for this study, I begin by drawing from the theory and research

related to viewing literacy as a social practice. Next, I locate the current study within the

MM flux

 

l
eAf"

*‘Hmfi. I\

 

 

‘ If: at
.. -
“5 VA
l
- 1
III 1“,-
I

may .

'IJD‘L
“*v-‘xI'
.

.
\i'gp‘ _
'MA.‘ \ .

"e-

‘15. 2’1 »

1“

.. - ,'
._~_
5 ““-

 

 

-13.}:

e

 

changing contexts of literacy and the reconstruction of English that result from new
technologies and new theoretical perspectives on literacy. I then turn to the literature on
“bridging” out-of-school literacies with classroom practices and offer a Bakhtinian

perspective for viewing this negotiation.

Literacy as a Social Practice

Over the last three decades, the view of literacy as an autonomous,
decontextualized skill that remains solely in a reader and writer’s head has been the focus
of a major point of critique. Researchers examining literacy situated in various groups of
people’s social and cultural practices have begun to point out the way that literacies fit
more of an “ideological model” than an “autonomous model” (Barton, Hamilton, &
Ivanic, 2000; Street, 2001b). Street (1984; 2000) argues that an “ideological model” of
literacy, in contrast to the “autonomous model,” points to a notion of literacy that is
multiple, embedded in social and cultural practices, and is shaped by issues of power.
Street’s notion of the two different models of literacy remain to be influential in literacy
theory today and have pushed scholars to think about multiple literacies rather than a
singular literacy, and to examine how literacies are shaped in particular contexts.

One theoretical route that researchers have taken with this new perspective of
literacy is in viewing literacy as a social practice. Building off of Hymes’ (1972)
ethnography of communication research, Heath (1982) examined literacy events, which
she defined as “any occasion in which a piece of writing is integral to the nature of
participants' interactions and their interpretive processes. A literacy event can then be

viewed as any action sequence, involving one or more persons, in which the production

 

,e :1 n- ‘
LI ‘11.»

 

are

‘l i:.'

 

 

.p,

-I
1..‘ I...

 

 

r-»‘
if.
5-

 

 

FM
‘;.‘ \

‘-

. '“s,“

1

r7;
.,.
-.

and/or comprehension of print plays a role” (p. 93). These events are the actual instances
in which literacy is used as to fulfill the goals of an activity. Most often written texts
were involved, either with or without oral discourse around the text. In a variety of
contexts, in and out of school, researchers (Cazden, 1986; Heath, 1983; Mehan, 1982)
explored how literacy was intimately connected to different activities and intertwined
with particular social and cultural relationships and purposes for literacy (Dyson &
Genishi, 2005).

Expanding upon the work of literacy events, researchers have been using practice
theories to describe the ideological nature of social and cultural activities (Miller &
Goodnow, 1995) and those activities where literacy is central. Practice theories
acknowledge that culture is not a set of beliefs and values. Rather, culture is a “social
dynamic organized within and by interconnected practices. . . [which become] resources
that individuals draw on, produce, and potentially transform as they respond to structural
conditions” (Dyson & Genishi, 2005, p. 89). Literacy researchers have utilized this
practice theory of culture and developed a socially and culturally situated view of
literacy. In their research of the literacies in one community, Barton and Hamilton
(1998) theorize literacy as a social practice, which they define as the repeated “cultural
' way[s] of utilizing literacy,” which are embedded in people’s social activities. Literacy
practices include “people’s awareness of literacy, constructions of literacy and discourses
of literacy, how people talk about and make sense of literacy” (Barton and Hamilton,
1998, p.6). As such, literacy practices are social, cultural, and “straddle the distinction
between individual and social worlds. . .existing in the relations of people, within groups

and communities” (Barton & Hamilton, 1998, p. 8).

Research on the literacy events and practices that are part of people’s everyday
literacies reveal that in any given culture, and among cultural boundaries, there are a
variety of ways in which people use literacy, and these are intimately connected to their
local lives (Barton & Hamilton, 1998; Barton et al., 2000; Gee, 1996; Street, 2001b).
Studies examining adolescents’ use of literacy in and out-of-school point to similar
findings: students, including academically “at-risk” students, spend a great deal of time
engaged in literate activities in out-of-school contexts, “mak[ing] sense of and tak[ing]
power in their worlds” (Moje, 2002, p 217). Students engage in reading magazines and
popular fiction (Smith & Wilhelm, 2002), reading the newspaper and community
announcements (Knobel, 2001), writing notes and graffiti (Finders, 1997; Moje, 2000),
zines (Knobel & Lankshear, 2002), and poetry and journals (Camitta, 1993). In these
studies, students who were thought of as academically “at-risk” were indeed engaging in
literacy practices that were part of their everyday lives. In addition, these studies
revealed that adolescents used literacy for meaningful and purposeful reasons, as they
shape and became shaped by the social and cultural practices in which they engage
(Knobel, 2001; Skilton-Sylvester, 2002; Vasquez, Pease-Alvarez, & Shannon, 1994). In
a study of adolescents labeled “at-risk” (Gallagher, 2006), I examined the literacy
practices connected to three different social spheres that were important in the students’
literacy lives: home/community, youth culture, and the official school sphere. In each of
these spheres, these “at-risk” adolescents utilized literacy (a) as a means to an end (e. g.,
writing a recipe to bake a cake), (b) to participate in their sociocultural networks (e. g.,

writing to family members to let them know you are off the street), and (c) for

understanding and positioning oneself in the world (e. g., writing poetry about social
injustices experienced).

While much of the research on literacy as a social practice has been influential in
understanding literacy in out-of—school contexts, recently researchers have explored how
seeing literacy as a social practice furthers our understanding of how meaning associated
with reading and writing vary according to the social and cultural practices of literacy
learning in schools and in classrooms. A few studies have examined the negotiation of
literacy practices within classrooms, examining the construction of literacies as the
interaction between teachers and students. Working with at-risk and gang-connected
youth in a writer’s workshop classroom, Moje, Willes, and Fassio (2001) encouraged
students to write expressive texts, focusing on sharing personal experiences in public
settings. Their work revealed how some students refused to write personal texts,
suggesting that when their normally unsanctioned literacies and identities were given
space in the classroom, some adolescents refused to allow their out-of- school literacies
to be recognized in the classroom.

Conducting an ethnography of literacy in a fifth-sixth-grade classroom, Lewis
(2001) examined the local classroom construction of four literacy practices related to the
reading and discussion of literature: read-aloud, peer-led literature discussions, teacher—
led discussions, and independent reading. Lewis illustrated how sociopolitical aspects
(e. g., peer status and social codes in the classroom, discourses and popular narratives) of
the classroom shaped and were shaped by these four practices. She found that the four
different practices allowed for students to position themselves differently “in relation to

peers, teacher, and text” (176). For example, in the peer-led discussions, students were

 

 

- 3r

' \

;.\M

e

— ' F

' r\\ 1
g .

ll

. _
’3 I i
lbs-n.1,.

 

-ve ‘l

‘1). s.—

‘r‘ r»
hue 1.“.

 

 

 

R'fn. . _
5 .
1". «s.

 

.rg_._i‘
s»

. .-
x _ \

 

a

bi_ ’
\.

1 , ...'
.“

9
'T’

I

given space to negotiate social positions and more voices entered the space of the
classroom, negotiating the status and power relationships. Lewis’ research details the
relationship between classroom social and cultural norms (including power and status)
and classroom literacy practices.

With the goal of examining how adolescent girls use literacy in different contexts
and how social roles are mediated by literacy, Finders (1997) conducted a yearlong study
at a junior high school. She used an ethnographic approach in order to examine how
literacy mediated her focal students’ lives as they were situated within cultural, historical,
and institutional settings. Finders observed how the youths used literacy as a tool to
mediate their relationships with their family, friends, and teachers, as well as negotiate
their evolving identity during a time of adolescent changes. Finders illustrated how the
participants used literacy to negotiate the boundaries between the two social groups, The
Social Queens and The Tough Cookies. Literacy mediated the way they defined
themselves and the way they weredefined in the context of the classroom and the school.
Whether it was the stance toward academic literacy, the materials the different social
groups read, the way they folded a particular note, or whether they chose to write on the
stalls of the bathroom, literacy was at the center of these negotiations. In addition,
Finders argued that the “literate underlife” that many of the students participated in (e. g.
writing jokes, parodying adults, creating meaningful symbols that were undecipherable
for adults) often influenced whether the girls engaged in or resisted academic literacies in
the classroom. For example, caring about learning and engaging in academic literacies
were signs of weakness for the Social Queens, whereas for the Tough Cookies, engaging

in academic tasks were seen as important for doing well in school. Finder’s work with

10

adolescent girls reinforced the necessity of understanding literacy as a social practice in
order to better understand the adolescents’ engagement while in and out of classrooms.
These classroom ethnographies highlight the importance of viewing literacy as
part of the social and cultural practices of the classroom. Through their connection of the
micro-analyses of interactions with macro-analyses of the broader social and cultural
practices, these researchers were able to explore how literacy is understood and practiced
among young and middle aged students. While these studies highlight the social and
cultural influences of literacy engagement in the classroom, it is important to note that
they do not examine the role that changing definitions of literacy and changing contexts
of literacy influence the negotiation of classroom practices. I now turn to a discussion of
these changes and to the new literacy studies and the context of English curriculum and

instruction.
Literacy and English in New Times

Multimodality and the New Literacies

In their text, New Literacies: Changing Knowledge and Classroom Learning,
Lankshear and Knobel (2003) distinguished between different conceptions of ‘new
literacies’, the chronological and the ontological. The chronological sense of ‘new’ refers
to those literacies that have recently been argued to be thought about as literacies. For
example, many of the literacy practices that are “found” to be impbrtant to people as they
navigate their lives, which never attained literacy status before recent theories of multiple
literacies, can be understood as new literacies. Practices such as scrapbooking, collecting

and using recipes, and creating and reading zines are examples of literacies that are new

11

because they have been recognized by researchers as valuable literacies (i.e., as were
many of the literacies in the discussion above).

The second sense of ‘new literacy’ that is relevant to this discussion has to do
with the ontologically idea of new, the idea that there are new literacies that are a result
from changes in the media, economy, and technology and communications. In the last
two decades, scholars have highlighted the changing contexts of literacy education,
pointing to the technological revolution and the increasing globalization of markets as the
impetus of change (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Gee, 2000; Leu & Kinzer, 2003). One
major change that scholars have emphasized as radically shifting the definitions and
practices of literacy in current times are the new forms of communication and
representation related to information and communication technologies (ICT), such as the
Internet and multimedia technologies. The advancement of the world of ICT has led to
new literacies and new possibilities for peoples’ working, public, and personal lives (The
New London Group, 1996). Many of these new possibilities involve forms of production
and communication, such as text-messaging, emailing, navigating hypertext domains on
the Internet, and utilizing computer word processing and publishing software.

Lankshear and Knobel (2003) have documented and described the nature of many
of the “new literacies” that are possible as a result of information and communication
technologies. One of the new literacies that Lankshear and Knobel highlight in their
research is blogging, publishing of personal weblogs. Weblogs vary in their structure and
use, but are similar to on-line diaries or journals where people communicate about topics
and issues of interest to themselves. These topics are often “nutty and can be painfully

banal, prejudiced, angst-ridden, or downright nasty, [or] they can also be erudite and

12

scale the pinnacles of sophisticated commentary and critique” (38). Lankshear and
Knobel describe most weblogs as consisting of some sort of reflection of print with links,
depending on the “personal style and nature of the topic” (38). Blogging allows
opportunities for people of all backgrounds and ages to publish their writings on a variety
of topics (e.g., news, sports, relationships) in spaces where they have significant amount
of influence in the production of the text. Weblogs, like many of the “new literacies,”
allow people (who have access to the technology) to publish with virtually little gate-
keeping and be read by an audience of a small group of friends or up to several thousand
readers (Kress, 2003).

One change that literacy researchers (Kress, 2003; C. Luke, 2000; Unsworth,
2002) have documented has been how texts have become increasingly more reliant on the
visual aspects of design. This transformation that reflects more attention to the visual
aspects of texts is seen in newspapers and in the textbooks that students use to learn
content knowledge in schools (Kress, 2000a). Visual aspects are integrated into the text
to represent a significant amount of the information, and not simply just repeating what
was written. Kress argues that the written information involves the action and events,
whereas the visual aspects of the text (i.e., diagrams) often represent the “core
information” of the curricular content (197). Therefore, in certain textbooks, making
sense of the visual is just as important, or more important, for learning the content than is
the written information (Kress, 2000b).

While texts have become (and are becoming more) increasing multimodal in their
integration of print and images in newspapers and textbooks, multimodality has become

central to the texts on the Internet. The new media (ICT) makes it easier for the creation

13

of multimodal texts, or “the multiplicity of modes, and in particular the mode of image—
still or moving—as well as other modes, such as music and sound effect” (Kress, 2003, p.
5). Kress (2000a; 2003) has been at the forefront of establishing a language for
understanding the various modes of representation (e.g., audio, spatial, visual, gestural),
in addition to the language and linguistic mode, which often holds the position of being
“fully adequate to the expression of anything that we might want to express” [(Kress,
2000b, p. 193). Arguing that language holds a privileged place in society and schools,
Kress (2000b) writes that “the assumption underlying a multimodal approach to
communication and representation is that. . .humans use many means made available in
their cultures for representation precisely because these offer differing potentials, both for
representation and for communication” (194). With new technologies come new ways of
representing and communicating, which will have serious social and cultural effects.
Kress’ research has led to the beginnings of a language for describing
multimodality and the “deep changes” occurring as a result of the movement from the
page to the screen (1). One change is that reading the screen offers the reader alternative
paths to construct meaning of the text, whereas the page consists of a pre-arranged
“reading path. . .along the lines of writing, from top to bottom, from left to write, as well
as in its simple sequential unfolding” (152). The screen, which is dominated by
hypertextual links and the integration of images and print, does not have such a clear
reading path. Reading images lack the force of conventions and the grammar for reading
them a particular way, although not fully “beyond conventions,” as Kress reminds us
(154). Using the example of a video-games magazine, reflecting the textbook discussed

above with the integration of images and text, Kress illustrates that the reader comes to

14

the text with different strategies. Watching readers of these magazines is similar to those
who play the video-games, and Kress argues that the “guiding principle is that of
‘following relevance,”’ which belong to the reader (162). The path for reading the page
is not regular (many ways of reading the page) as in the traditional page, images are of
immediate relevance, and the path is ordered by the “principles of relevance” of the
reader. This change from page to screen, according to Kress (2003) has dramatic
implications for the reading process:

The former [reading task] coded a clear path, which had to be followed. The task

of reading lay in interpretation and transformation of that which was clearly there

and clearly organized. The new task is that of applying principles of relevance to

a page which is (relatively) open in its organization, and consequently offers a

range of possible reading paths, perhaps infinitely many (162).

A second major change that arises due to the change from page to screen is the
interactivity of new media. In addition to interacting with the text through hyperlink
environments, the reader can engage with the text often by writing back to the author or
the producer of a text in a way that was difficult to do with the page. This interactivity
afforded by new media positions the reader in a different way than the traditional page
does, allowing for more than just the traditional unidirectional flow of communication
(Kress, 2003, p. 6). Kress argues that the contexts of literacy have changed, as reflected
in the above discussion, and the continual change will require a reconsideration of the
value of the multiple forms of representation.

These changes in the contexts of literacy have pushed literacy educators to

continue reconsidering the nature of literacy, classroom practice, and the literacy

15

standards for the new millennium (Alverrnann, 2002). Some scholars have gone so far as
to argue that traditional schooling (students traveling between classes) with the focus on
the “the static linearity of the print and book-based models of literacy” will not be the
model of schooling and learning for the future (C. Luke, 2000, p. 81). Luke forecasts a
time when ICTs have transformed contexts of literacy learning and practice to the point I
where it demands that we reconsider the current and evolving practices. Similarly, Leu
and Kinser (2003) argue that “our students’ success [will] be in a world where reading
will take place more often within networked ICT than within the pages of a book” (20).
While these transformations of literacy and education might be distant to our current
context, the current changes in the contexts of literacy resulting from ICTs, have an
impact on our conceptions of literacy, and influence the definitions of literacy, and thus

literacy research and classroom practice.

English in New Times

Recently, many scholars who have some affiliation with the discipline of English
(i.e., literature studies, composition studies, adolescent literacy, cultural studies) have
argued that the field of English education is at a crucial point in its history, and at a time
when what is needed is a “rethinking of the very intellectual field that we are supposed to
profess” (Luke, 2004, p. 86; see also Nelms, 2000; and Barrel] et al., 2004). Calling for a
“reconstruction” of the English discipline, Ben Nelms (2000), a past editor of English
Education and the English Journal, reflected in a recent article on the tumultuous history
and the current context of the English discipline. Discussing the history of the discipline,
Nelms described the eventual effects of the 18903 Conference on English of the

Committee of Ten, a group of seven university representatives, a Boston headmaster,

16

superintendent, and a school teacher, led to the unification of what might have been two
separate disciplines, communication (or rhetoric) and literature. The unification of these
two possible disciplines combined the “Jeffersonian ideals of an enlightened citizenry,
capable of discernment and articulate expression of ideas,” with the “aristocratic longing
for cultivated taste and the opportunity for enhanced sophistication” (p. 51). While
originally constituted as mutual goals for English, Nelms argued that “literature has
emerged as the master, at least with older, college-bound students; communication skills
the handmaiden—with all the inequality those gender-laden terms imply” (p. 51). Many
scholars in the last fifteen years have articulated the eventual division that resulted over
the last 100 years (Purves, 1990; Willinsky, 1991), acknowledging the privileging the
study and appreciation of literature over the study of communication and rhetoric.

There has been a renewed effort in the redefinition and reconstruction of English as
a result of the increasing importance of preparing students to face the challenges and
possibilities of the changing contexts of literacy (Barrell, Hammett, Mayher, & Pradl,
2004; NCTE standards for the English language arts, 1996; Nelms, 2000). This
reconstruction has led to the recognition of the value of communication and rhetorical
aspects essential to be an educated participant in the 21St century. One area of this
reconstruction of English instruction and curriculum involves building critical literacy
skills for engaging with multiple forms of texts, such as film, music, literature, and
advertisements. Morrell (2002) argues that a critical analysis of students’ musical and
film texts, should be integrated with the critical analysis of academic texts in English
classrooms.

The influence of cultural studies has led to the broadening of what “counts” as a

17

text and the expansion of the possible repertoires of texts studied in English classrooms
(Nixon, 2003). Cultural studies (1997) offers even the most “mundane” and taken for
granted semiotic practices, or practices that are important to the local culture, as sites of
sophisticated examinations and educative experiences (Morgan, 2004, p. 41). For
example, studies of popular media texts (e.g., films, music) allow for critical analysis
“requiring an understanding of its role within the network of social relations it is part of”
(Morgan, 2004, p. 43). These critical analyses of media provide students opportunities to
critically evaluate texts that are part of their cultural landscape, exploring the larger social
processes and contexts within which they are produced. Therefore, reading becomes the
semiotic exercise of investigating the social and cultural relations essential for the
production of the texts (whether “popular,” or official) (C. Luke, 2000).

In response to the changing contexts of literacy, another aspect of the
reconstruction of English involves the reconsideration of the writing practices and the
production of texts in the classroom. Writing development, within this perspective, is
seen as a process of expanding upon students’ “diverse communicative repertoires” of
production practices, as opposed to learning a “correct” way of writing (Dyson, 2004, p.
214). This perspective challenges the notion of promoting a “correct” way to write, and
presents a concern for the reproduction of a hierarchy of practices (i.e., print-based,
formal grammar), acknowledging that writing and other productive practices should
always be understood as consisting of affordances and limitations. Therefore, different
modes of production (i.e., linguistic, spatial) become possible tools used to represent
and/or communicate meaning, each with their possible resources for meaning making

(Kress, 2003). While not arguing for the replacement of literature from the English

18

 

1|

curriculum, these researchers are reconsidering the importance of other areas of the field
of English, with contributions from cultural studies, communication and media studies,
multimodalities and semiotics (A. Luke, 2004), that are essential for preparing students
for the diversity of texts of the 21S” century.

While many researchers and leaders in the English field have begun to embrace
the new literacies (both chronological and ontological), and while many of the students
are intimately involved and adept with multiple forms of engaging with various texts
related to ICTtechnologies, textbook writers and curriculum developers, as well as the
policies and practices of English in schools, have been relatively slow to change (A.
Luke, 2004; Knobel, 1999). One impetus for this slow change has been the call for a
back to the classics approach. This return to the classics has been fueled by Hirsch’s '
popular texts (1987; 1996) in which he argues that there is a core set of knowledge, or
cultural literacy, that he believes all people should know. The contents of the cultural
literacy that all teachers must teach if students are to be educationally successful has been
a constant debate by many. Hirsch offered his own list of the most important knowledge
for students, which was heavily dominated by a cultural literacy that reflected ancient
Greece and the West (pm-19005). This popular theory of the common cultural literacy
has contributed to the maintenance of the traditional cannon of texts and knowledge, as
seen in policy (national and state standards) and in the local practices within classrooms.

In addition to promoting a shared cultural literacy, many argue that the classics
should continue to be taught because there is something about particular texts that
furthers development of reasoning and moral thought (H. Bloome, 1994). Carol J ago

writes that “a critical reading of classical literature results in a deep literacy that I believe

l9

is an essential skill for anyone who wants to attempt to make sense of the world” (cited in
Brimi, 2005, p. 21-22). These arguments for an underlying quality of classic texts
continue to reinforce the impOrtance for the traditional literary cannon. A study of the
texts of English classrooms (Applebee, 1993) reveals that most secondary English
classrooms focus on the study of novels and plays, while non-fiction and other texts made
up 14.5% in grades 9-10 and 6.2% in grades 11-12 of the required texts in English
classes. The five most common book-length texts in public schools were Romeo and
Juliet, Macbeth Huckleberry Finn, Julius Caesar, and To Kill a Mockingbird. 92% of the
authors were from the United States or Great Britain, and of the required texts in English
classrooms, 98.7% were written by white authors and 85.9% written by male authors. In
large part, despite the vast changes in the contexts of literacy described above, the texts
and curriculum of English education remains heavily focused on literature and the
“classics”, and dominated by white and male authors.

In the Gutenberg Elegies, Sven Birkets asks, “What is the place of reading. . .in
our culture?” (cited in Faigley, 1998, p. 13). Birkets provides the answer that reading is
losing its place, “with the attendant effects of the loss of deep thinking, the erosion of
language, and the flattening of historical perspective. ..[and] calls on the rest of us to
resist the tide of electronic media” (Faigley, 1998, p. 13). This fear in the disappearing of
reading and the book is real, and the differences between reading a book and on the
Internet should continue to be of steady interest. However, statements that only denigrate
one or the other, work to perpetuate myths about the “erosion” of thought, language,

without having fully evaluated the affordances and limitations of the different media.

20

Nelms’ reminds us that “curriculum, like politics, is local,” and that “individual
teachers and local planning committees [are] to whom the task of reconstructing English
will finally and eventually fall” (p. 58). It is essential, for this reason, for further
examination of the process in which those at the local level construct and reconstruct
English. The following study is one such exploration of the construction of English
within one classroom, with the possibilities of understanding the ways in which the
teacher and students construct English in new times. Working within and through the
various contexts of change and reconstruction described above, Mrs. Oakley and her
students made sense of and produced what it meant to read, write, and to be a student of

English.
Negotiating Literacies: From Bridging Literacies to Expanding Boundaries

Bridging Out-of-School Literacies with Classroom-Based Practices

Hull and Shultz’s (2001; 2002) two texts highlight the recent literacy research
with students in out-of-school settings, and set forth a series of areas for future research.
The first of these research agendas addressed questions related to “how to bridge
students’ worlds with classroom practice” (2001, p. 603). As part of this research
agenda, they include the following:

How might out-of-school identities, social practices, and the literacies that they

recruit be leveraged in the classroom? How might teachers incorporate students’

out-of-school interests and predilections but also extend the range of the literacies

with which they are conversant? (p. 603).

Recognizing the great amount of research that had been conducted in out-of-school

settings, Hull and Shultz argued that in addition to continuing to explore literacies in out-

21

of-school contexts, research must also focus on the examination of the “bridging” of
students out-of—school interests and practices with those that are traditionally valued in
the classroom. Although Hull and Shultz’s call for research into the bridging process was
timely, as it called for a continued exploration of how the research about literacies in out-
of—school contexts can inform practice in schools, the call for a research agenda that
aimed at bridging literacies was not necessarily new to literacy researchers, as they noted
in one of their texts (2002). Scholars have been conducting research on the relationships
between school and out—of-school literacies in a variety of settings, and have been
arguing for classroom instruction that recruits and utilizes students’ literate resources
(Alverrnann, 2001 ).

A significant amount of the research in this tradition explores how years of prior
ethnographic fieldwork conducted on the population allows for uncovering cultural
mismatches and providing teachers with the knowledge and awareness to build upon
students’ linguistic and literacy practices (Au, 1993; Heath, 1983; Lee, 2000; McCarthey,
2000). Research on bridging out-of-school literacies with academic literacies can be
traced back to Heath’s (1983) work with teachers. With Heath’s ethnographic insights
and guidance, the teachers, or “learning researchers” as she referred to them, learned
about students’ language practices in their communities and adapted classroom
instruction to help the students learn to code-switch, and ultimately “translate and expand
knowledge gained in activities outside of the classroom to focus on different aspects of
the curriculum and school skills” (355). In a similar tradition, M011 and his colleagues
(Gonzalez et al., 1995; M01], 1994, 2000) have designed a responsive approach in which

the teacher is trained as an ethnographer of their students’ communities in order to recruit

22

mm" D‘ ‘
L

 

 

. ' .‘

.4 ‘ ’0
7.111.130! “‘1‘
I~n\1‘]-’I\1
mil w:
"mi-IF." I'd"
18- ' 4‘

....11-- h
b

, . l» r-L ‘
“fl, his”: {\-

Cir.
remit of con-
tht'ol. [re

'1 'T' ' '
>.ET;;.\.I‘1:I. d
. . 5

students w.
as. In the
i'lt’itli Am:
kit" and of 1
it’s. The In
ICE} ‘Iilit'l 4i
fitment;

1“
v1.1.“ . II '3"
L

‘ §l\. U!

funds of knowledge, “historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of
knowledge and skills” (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992). The teacher designs
learning activities that aim to tap into the various funds of knowledge the students bring
with them to school.

Carol Lee and her colleagues (1995; 1997; 2000) sought to adapt instruction as a
result of consistently low performance among African Americans in an urban high
school. Lee hypothesized that if students were to understand how irony exists in
signifying, a form of talk in the African American community that may involve ritual
insult and figurative language, with the proper cultural modeling by the teacher, the
students would be able to draw upon the strategies to understand irony within curricular
texts. In the study, Lee designed an instructional practice that asked the students to read
African American texts rich with instances of signifying. The students learned about the
rules and of signifying, as well as the particular strategies they used to comprehend the
texts. The knowledge and strategies were then applied to the process of understanding
irony (and answering inferential questions) in additional texts. The results of the
experimental group showed far higher scores on the inferential questions than did the
control group who did not receive the innovative instruction. Therefore, Lee found that
these underachieving students had the necessary strategies to understand irony when they
were asked to use their previously learned systems of meaning making, seen in the ways
they communicate and interact outside of school. This understanding of irony in
signifying served as a cultural foundation for the students on which to bridge the school

curriculum.

23

In large part, this tradition of research involves the teachers and researchers
recruiting the linguistic and cultural knowledge of students with backgrounds who are of
one ethnic minority. Dyson (2003) reminds us that when thinking about responsive
teaching, we must view students not solely as part of singular ethnic groups, where
stereotypes are likely to form, but rather as students drawing from a rich and varied
cultural landscape, with multiple cultural influences that must be negotiated in the
classroom.

One area that scholars have looked to for building upon students’ knowledge and
literacies is popular culture, which is “popular” for students from a variety of cultural
backgrounds. Much of adolescents’ out-of-school literacies are connected with the
music, movies, video games, and language of popular culture. Researchers have explored
the possible uses of popular culture in English classrooms as ways for teachers to utilize
the vast resources that students bring to the classroom (Alvermann & Hagood, 2000;
Alvermann, Moon, & Hagood, 1999; Alverrnann & Xu, 2003; Hinchman, Alvermann,
Boyd, Brozo, & Vacca, 2003; Vetrie, 2004). In a secondary English classroom, Morrell
and Duncan-Andrade (2002; 2004) explored the impacts that utilizing Hip-hop culture
had on students’ academic and critical literacy development. They found that students
used their prior schemas for interpreting literary texts when analyzing Hip-hop texts line
by line. The students soon were able to draw comparisons between the influence of
society in a Renaissance poem and the political nature of current Hip-hop songs. Their
findings suggest that by integrating Hip-hop culture into secondary English classrooms,
students’ engaged with traditional academic texts and goals, while also affirming the

everyday lives of the students.

24

tum. .. ' ash-k“.

 

The studies discussed above that promote a bridging of out-of-school literacies
and knowledge to the academic practices of the classroom tend to reinforce rigid
boundaries between home and school, and between out-of-school and academic literacies.
When literacies and knowledge are recruited and designed to be built upon, boundaries
between the texts and purposes are reinforced, further creating the distinction between the
literacy practices students engage in and those that are valued by the school. While the
“bridge” metaphor contributes to the “great divide” between in school and out of school,
Hull and Shultz (2002) recognize that this distinction often leads to an understanding that
out-of-school practices are good and school-based practices are inauthentic, and
sometimes dismisses students’ engagement with texts as less serious and “remedial” (p.
3). Recent research reveals that literacy practices are much more blended across
boundaries than previously understood in the literature. In this way, literacies are better
thought of as connected to social domains and networks (Brandt & Clinton, 2002; Moje,
Ciechanowski, Kramer, & Ellis, 2004; Purcell-Gates, 2006) that are not locked down to
particular physical spaces.

In addition, while some researchers have begun to argue for a reconsideration of
the value of students’ literacies in English classrooms (Alvermann & Hagood, 2000;
Mahiri, 1998; Morrell, 2002), the bridging metaphor tends to further reinforce ideological
boundaries between students’ literacies and school-based practicesz. Recruiting and
utilizing students’ literacies as a scaffold to the academic practices often does little to the

official curriculum. Heath (1983) argued that the “central role [of the teachers’

 

2 Distinctions between certain practices can be important, and practices differ in value
and complexity, although because one is valued it does not necessarily lead to it being
complex, and vice versa. However, the bridging metaphor further produces the
privileged status of certain practices.

25

responsive instruction] was to pass on to all groups certain traditional tools and ways of
Using language. . .reformulating to different degrees their home habits of handling
knowledge and their ways of talking about knowledge” (354-355). While students’
practices may be recognized in the act of bridging, they are still recognized as “out-of-
school” literacies in relation to those “academic” literacies privileged in the classroom.
The students’ practices are seen as different, and although respected and bridged, not
expanding the boundaries of the privileged school-based practices.3 This work has been
and continues to be important as it pushes to make classrooms more meaningful for
students; however, there is a need for a reconsideration of the relationship between

students’ literacies and those traditionally practiced in schools.

Maintaining and Expanding Boundaries: Toward a Theory of Negotiating Literacies
The discussion of the literature above speaks to the need for further research into

the complexities of the social practices of literacy in the classroom and the integration of
students’ knowledge and multiple literacies in current times of change. As the contexts
of literacy change, the English classroom becomes a place for the negotiation of what
English is and what role the students’ multiple literacies (and those they see important to
many in the 21St century) play in the negotiation of the practices of the classroom. The
growing concern for bridging literacies demonstrates the value of the relationship
between students’ practices and those that are valued in the academy. In the following

study, I explore the processes involved in the negotiation of literacies in one English

 

3 Dyson (1993) has a similar critique with the language and cultural styles research. She
argues that cultural styles do not fully account for contextual aspects of communicative
events, leading to seeing the cultural style as a difference associated with a particular
group, and something that might be bridged, but not ultimately “situated and
incorporated” (p. 218).

26

may!) film]
I

 

 

cistmm. 1
r' ' ‘; I
JILJLIC‘ I»

B it
it

3".V’CIT .

Insulin. i:

I . ' ‘
{with Elle t.
1: stiletto o

anion .nd

intend dl'j
use of rt.
111?. a 31.13.;
€115\§I\:1ng_ r

. e
,-

“" 3‘3“» llu‘t
itwine in.
1.. ' t t

u&\P"«

UUCE

'i'. .;
"e" 1“ CI.

classroom, as a way of furthering our understanding of the relationship between students’
literacies and those valued in the classroom.

Bakhtin’s dialogic studies (1981) provide a promising theoretical frame for
examining the negotiation of literacies in the classroom. Bakhtin uses dialogism to
explain the constant interaction involved in discourse, language, and culture. According
to a theory of dialogism, languages and cultures are always in a dialogic state, where
tension and struggle exist, even when language and cultures are overly controlled and
dominated by one force or group. Drawing from a Bakhtinian theory of dialogism,
Nystrand and his colleagues (1997) examined the relationship between the dialogic
nature of classroom interactions and a variety of learning outcome measures in a study
with a large sample of 8‘h and 9th grade English classrooms. Focusing mainly on
questions, the dialogic classroom was understood as allowing for authentic questions that
did not have prescribed answers and that allowed for more of a negotiation around what
became knowledge in the class and with the texts. They determined from their analysis
that students learned more, as measured by assessments at the end of the school year,
when in classrooms that were more dialogic. The little amount of time the researchers
spent in the classrooms (i.e., four class periods) in their large-scale study, however, calls
into question how able the researchers were to understand the literacy events as they are
situated in the literacy practices of the classroom. Therefore, the findings of this study
highlight the need for continued exploration of the negotiation of literacy practices in
English classrooms to better understand the process and the negotiation that takes place

in a dialogic classroom.

27

mun- : L‘s .
fl

:. syn A' -

 

 

, e a” 2
k. 5U.I\u

:mrznrhe

cs.e;:ue~
iiiihdlsl
arxuhtitl

centerin

33:35.“ “in

“’-?~15‘Z‘-f 31"»

7!
‘JF '
V: min.»
‘ H k
“trail
i}-
‘l.

Also using the theoretical constructs of dialogism and monologism, Gutierrez and
her colleagues examined competing scripts between teachers and students as they played
out in the classroom (Gutierrez, Rymes, & Larson, 1995; Gutierrez & Stone, 2000). By
analyzing these scripts, which they defined as expected ways of interacting based on past
experiences, Gutierrez and her colleagues explored the tensions and contradictions that
surfaced, and identified and examined the interactions that occurred. Gutierrez and her
colleagues (1995) illustrated how one teacher’s script constructed the classroom in such a
way that stifled students’ cultural and local knowledge they brought to the classroom. As
a result of this “monologism,” the students’ counterscripts developed as an unofficial
event or in specific confrontation to the teacher script. The authors argue that the only
way that a “true interaction” can occur between the teacher and students is within a “third
space,” where competing discourses and constructions of literacy becomes a
collaborative, dialogical act.

Other studies have looked at the joint negotiation of practices in the classroom,
looking at the dialogic nature of the students and the teacher negotiating space and
knowledge in the classroom. Moje and her colleagues (2004) explored students’ funds of
knowledge that shaped their literacy practices in science classrooms, and looked for
possibilities for students bringing in knowledge and literacy practices in science classes.
The researchers theorized the possible instances where students’ funds of knowledge
were integrated as “third space,” drawing from Bhabha (1994). While the study focused
a great deal on the actual funds of knowledge and whether they were integrated in the
classroom, a focused examination of the classroom interactions and the process of

creating the third space was not the focus of the reported study. The study does push

28

educators to seek opportunities for valuing the literacies and knowledge of content of the
students and their families for producing new knowledges, and working towards a third
space.

Important to Bakhtin’s idea of dialogism is that, “language and discourse of any
given time and place are continuously shaped and pulled in different directions by
interacting forces of stability and change” (Nystrand et al., 1997, p. 12). The shaping and
pulling occurs due to the centripetal and centrifugal pressures of a language and discourse
of a particular time. The centripetal pressures consist of the pressures towards
convention and norrnativity. Bakhtin (1981) used the canonization of ideological systems
and the teaching of dead languages as examples of ways in which a unitary language is
formed. These centripetal pressures “struggle to overcome the heteroglossia of
language. . .creating within a heteroglot national language the firm, stable linguistic
nucleus of an officially recognized literary language, or else defending an already formed
language from the pressure of growing heteroglossia (p. 271). In describing centripetal
forces, Nystrand and his colleagues (1997) write that they include “rules of grammar,
usage, ‘official genres,’ ‘correct’ language, privileged ideologies” (p. 12). Amidst these
centripetal pressures are the centrifugal pressures of difference and change, which are
“the forces of life, experience, and the natural pluralism of language” (Nystrand et al.,
1997, p. 12). The centrifugal pressures are those that push for creativity and difference,
and are often expressed in areas that do not have a central language, like street songs,
anecdotes, and parodies of official texts (Bakhtin, 1981).

The dialogic nature of the pressures for unifying and stratifying languages reveals

a view of language, and classroom interaction, that highlights its “multivoicedness” and

29

w“\

' <ru.—-~

 

 

consent :0
paste a:
Him:
the :i‘fs‘lt‘r.
Jitil‘t :t)' .:
stuients' li
Lie file's ';

Iii-321416 11

91
0‘ —V>_:
Sn
-
‘..'_:
... .I] (‘31
H
ON.
‘1 n G
V 1| r
3:9,,

constant conflict and struggle (Nystrand et al., 1997, p. 13). For studying the literacy
practices and nature of English in the classroom, during the current time of change, a
Bakhtinian theory of dialogism can offer a view of the English classroom that highlights
the tension between the pressures for stability and convention, and pressures for
creativity and change. Rather than viewing the classroom as a site for “bridging”
students’ literacies, which does little to challenge the official practices of the academy,
the following study examines the processes in which the teacher and the students
negotiate the practices of the classroom, in ways that explore the expansion and
maintenance of the official practices of the classroom. Therefore, a view of the
integration process becomes one of negotiating the boundaries of the practices of the
classroom, amidst the changing contexts of literacy, not solely a discussion of the
“bridging” of students’ literacy practices. This perspective highlights the changing and

multivoiced nature of the practices of the classroom and sees the boundaries as fluid.

Statement of Purpose

The literacy and English fields are experiencing great change as a result of new
information technologies, an overwhelming abundance of visual texts, and the increasing
diversity of today’s classrooms. Due to these changes, questions arise as to what counts
as literacy, as reading, and as writing (Leu & Kinzer, 2003). How much will changing
literacies result in changing distributions of power (Kress, 2003)? What forms of
knowledge will be important for students to know, and what skills must students be adept
with in order to live successfully in their working, public, and private lives (The New
London Group, 1996)? And, finally, what role do English teachers play in creating

contexts where students develop these new knowledges and new literacies? “What might

30

it mean to teach and to profess English in a multilingual and multicultural, heteroglossic
and multimediated world?” (Luke, 2004, p. 85).

As these questidns are being asked at the local, state, and national levels, various
groups are seeking to define, construct, and reconstruct English. As texts and practices
are becoming more diverse, pressures are continuing to mount for a state and nationally
standardized curriculum that seeks to narrow the conceptions of literacy. Ironically, the
literacies with which students must become proficient and knowledgeable in their social,
personal, and work related lives are becoming more abundant and varied. In their
Position Statement on Adolescent Literacy, Moore, Bean, Birdyshaw, and Rycik (1999)
argued. that:

Adolescents entering the adult world in the 21St century will read and write more

than at any other time in human history. They will need advanced levels of

literacy to perform their jobs, run their households, act as citizens, and conduct
their personal lives. They will need literacy to cope with the flood of information
they will find everywhere they turn. They will need literacy to feed their

imaginations so they can create the world of the future (p. 99).

Those with the task of detem1ining what finally becomes English during this
restless time of change are the teachers and students in English classrooms. This study
illustrates how a teacher and her students creatively worked within constraints (i.e.,
conventions of a language, rules defined by the English department and state standards),
and negotiated the literacies of the day-to-day curriculum, expanding and maintaining the
boundaries of literacy and of English. This study not only captures the texts and practices

that became important for Mrs. Oakley and students as they engaged with English, but

31

Md,mj\|

-q'

 

 

 

tilt {Lil} .ii
trite-1Q
influence. 1
he} 4.13:2;
gnaw 1h
is" ,

\

-iu\$&..L\_

{Ed‘me 1r

STANCE} (

the study also reveals the processes and influences that were important to the shaping of
the literacy practices of the classroom. In order to explore these processes and
influences, I have focused on three essential aspects of the classroom practice: a) the texts
they studied, b) the reading practices that were integral, and c) the writing and production
practices that came to define engagement in 9Lh grade English for Mrs. Oakley and the
students.

Motivated by the existing literature, the following study explores the construction
and reconstruction of English, as the students and teacher negotiated what counts as
valued texts, and reading and writing practices. Essential to the study is an exploration
into the constructions of English and the ways in which students’ literacy practices
become integrated and/or influential in the expanding and maintaining of the literacy
practices of the classroom.

The goal of the study is not necessarily to evaluate or chart whether students are
expanding or maintaining their understandings of academic literacy. The goal is, rather,
to examine the practices and processes that are involved as the students and teacher
negotiate the literacy practices of the classroom, and to examine the nature of the
interactive processes of expansion and maintenance (pressures for stability and pressures
for change) as they play out in the English classroom. This study provides a
comprehensive investigation into the construction of literacies in the classroom and
affords us the opportunity to better understand the following areas: a) what becomes
valued as English in New Times, b) the role of both the teacher and the students in the
negotiation process, and c) the role of the many social and political forces involved in the

negotiation of literacies.

32

CHAPTER 2: METHOD AND CONTEXT OF THE STUDY

In order to address the research questions listed in chapter 1, I designed the
following 8 month long ethnographic case study in a ninth grade English classroom.
Drawing upon a social practice framework, this study was designed to capture the
practices and processes involved in the negotiation of literacies during changing times.
In what follows I explain the rationale for selecting ethnographic methods, and introduce
the school, class, and participants. I also explain my procedures fer data collection and

analysis.

Methodology

The ethnography of literacy, within the tradition of ethnography in education, has
a rich history of exploring the local ways of using language and literacy within
individuals’ social lives (Barton & Hamilton, 1998; Green, Dixon, & Zaharlick, 2003;
Purcell-Gates, 2006). Researchers have used ethnography to “grapple with uncertainty
and confusion, how meanings emerge through talk and collective action, how
understandings and interpretations change over time” (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995, p
4). Ethnographic case studies in the qualitative tradition (Erickson, 1986) are important
for studying phenomena within the “messy complexity of human experience” (Dyson &
Genishi, 2005, p. 3). By analyzing the local practices in a particular context,
ethnographic case studies are powerful for developing a situated view of “what counts as
literate practices in the local group across actors, times, events, and spaces” (Green et al.,
2003, p. 212).

Ethnography was essential for addressing my research questions for two

important reasons. First, studying literacy as a social practice involved the examination

33

of the uses and meanings of literacy situated in people’s everyday lives (Barton &
Hamilton, 1998; Purcell-Gates, 2006). Therefore, ethnography afforded me the
opportunity to interpret the negotiation of literacy practices, in terms of the teacher and
students’ “immediate and local meanings” (Erickson, 1986). It was this reason that I
developed ethnographic questions and utilized ethnographic methods of data collection. I
assumed the role of a participant observer, collected several forms of data, and was part
of the classroom for the school year. These ethnographic methods allowed me the
opportunity to get access to the situated meanings and the ways-the participants valued
and understood literacy in their lives. Secondly, with an ethnographic design, I was able
to examine and appreciate the holistic aspects as well as the particularities of the co-
constructed classroom. As Barton and Hamilton (1998) inform us about the ethnographic
study of literacy: “It is about connecting the particular to the larger context of patterned
practices, how specific things, people and processes are related, how the specific is I
connected with its social and historical context” (p. 72). Therefore, ethnographic
methods allowed me the opportunity to situate each person as a member of larger social

networks, as well as an active participant negotiating the literacies of the classroom.
Setting and Participants

The Research Site

This research project was conducted in a ninth grade English class at Middleview
High School, located in a university town in the Midwest. Middleview was a compelling
research site for several reasons. Middleview was located in between a medium sized
city and affluent suburban towns. As a result of being between the urban and wealthier

suburban areas, both rich and poor, white and non—white students from different class

34

 

backgrounds attended the school. Therefore, the school was unique in that it was
ethnically, as well as, economically diverse.

The school district prided itself on having a diverse student body and high
academic achievement, as seen through the yearly state tests. The school boasted an
international student body representing 43 different countries. With nearly 1200
students, 85% of graduates (.86 overall dropout rate, 2.21 senior year rate) attend post-
secondary colleges. Demographic data reflect a school with 73% Caucasian, 15%
African American, 7% Asian, 5% Hispanic, and .04% Native American. The yearly
assessment data shows the school as being consistent with state test scores in reading and
writing disparities between Caucasian students and students from minority groups.
Figure 2 shows a comparison of student proficiency (i.e., defined as whether student
meets or exceeds state’s standards) on 2003-2004 state standardized tests for reading and
writing, disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, and economically disadvantaged. The
school shows significantly higher academic proficiency on reading and writing state
mandated tests when compared to the average state scores. However, the disparities
between different ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds remain an issue in this school.

Figure 2. Comparison of Proficiency on the State Standardized Assessment (2003-
2004)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grade Subject Male Female Asian Black Hispanic White Economically
level area Disadvanta ed .

School 7‘ Reading 76% 90% 74% 64% 80% 90% 64%

State 7‘“ Reathg 57% 66% 71% 40% 46% 68% 44%

School 7" WritingL 59% 78% 63% 51% 55% , 75% 52%

State 7‘F Writing 47% 38% 62% 31% 40% 52% 35%

School 117‘Ii _ Readifl 88% 85% 64% 79% <10 92%

State 11‘“ Reading 70% 82% 78% 60% 63% 79% 60%

School 11‘ Writing 70% 83% 68% 61% <10 82%

State 1 1‘5 Writing 40% 56% 63% 28% 35% 52% 29%

 

35

Like many communities located in the Midwest, Middleview felt the effects of the
changing economic landscape. Within the region, the shift from manufacturing to
information-based economies put people’s careers and their families in difficult, and
sometimes desperate situations. While many communities are still recovering from this
economic shift, towns like Middleview have been met with the demands of embracing
this shift to an information-based economy. Therefore, this community was
representative of many communities looking to provide students of all cultural and
economic backgrounds the skills and knowledge to be successful active participants in
the increasingly information and global society.

One advantage that Middleview had in adjusting to the economic shift was the
close partnership the town and district had with the local University. This partnership
was evident in the formal ties between the University and the school community, as in the
program established with grant money whose goal was to connect teachers to ideas and
research related to cross cultural education. They had periodic meetings and discussed
cross cultural issues, while trying to promote global issues in the K—12 curriculum. The
partnership was also evident in that the town and University were often involved in
mutually organizing programs that provided rich experiences for all in the community,
such as the One Book, One Community program, and the Martin Luther King celebration

(which Mrs. Oakley encouraged her students to attend).

The Class and the Classroom

Ninth grade English is the first class of four required years of English at
Middleview High School. For the first three years students must take a sequence of

courses that are required for all students, which then allows them up to have the option of

36

taking a variety of English classes during their senior year (e.g., film study, creative
writing, etc.). Ninth grade English is the first in this sequence and a course that is
required for all freshman in the school. Therefore, unless the student had placed out of
the class the summer before", regardless of interest or ability, all students enroll in and
must pass freshman English to continue with the other English classes in the sequence.

Ninth grade English was an introduction to what it meant to be an English student
at the high school level. As mentioned in the course description (see Figure 3), the
course was an introduction to old and new literature, as well as literature studies, and
writing skills. As a result of the nature of this introductory English class, it was an
opportunity to get a glimpse into the process of defining and negotiating the boundaries
of English, what counted as texts and literacy, and what was privileged reading and
writing and interactions around literature. For this reason, ninth grade English was a rich
context in which to explore negotiations of literacy.

Figure 3. Course Description in “English Course Offering” Pamphlet

 

 

This course provides instruction in both classic and contemporary literature. The
literary selections are presented in thematic units and have been selected from works
which present the wide diversity of cultural views and values in society. Writing
instruction is provided both by the classroom teacher and in the Writing Seminar where
students will use a computer to compose, edit, and publish all writings completed there.
Skill development includes the following areas: literature studies, writing skills,
language usage, grammar, group and individual projects, and oral presentations.
Content tested on [state exams].

 

 

 

4 Students at Middleview High School have the opportunity to place out of the first two
English courses if they read a selected amount of texts and pass a comprehensive exam.
Therefore, some students in 8‘h grade have placed out of introductory English, and some
students in 9th grade English placed out of sophomore English for the next year.

37

Participating and engaging in Mrs. Oakley’s ninth grade English class was a
multisensory, multimodal experience. The class engaged in shared reading experiences
of several literature texts, discussed the literature in large groups, analyzed poetry, and
composed and edited a variety of print texts (e.g., 5 paragraph essays, responses to
literature prompts). In addition to these reading, writing, and speaking activities, the
members of the class often engaged in dramatizing characters, sharing recipes for dishes
they prepared, flipping through picture albums, sharing scrapbooks they created, quizzing
each other before vocabulary quizzes, listening to a variety of music, and discussing
political and social issues. These experiences were a result of the curriculum that was
partly designed by Mrs. Oakley, and partly the result of the vast resources, experiences,
and motivations that students brought with them into the classroom.

As a result of the building construction that. was underway on the school during
the year of the study, the class shifted classrooms half way through the year. During the
first semester, they were utilizing another English teacher’s classroom. Since the teacher
taught a film as literature course, there were film posters hanging throughout the room.
The desks were in rows and students were free to sit where they wanted to sit, as long as
they did not talk too much with others. When the class moved to the Mrs. Oakley’s new
room after winter break, the class was welcomed in to Mrs. Oakley artistic and aesthetic
touch. A collection of fashionable hats lined the perimeter of the ceiling of the room.
Large pictures of and quotes from Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther
King, Jr. filled the back of the room. Students’ projects wallpapered the sides of the
room, adding color and artistic design to the white walls. A couch and chairs provided

comfortable seating for those who are able to get to them first. Others sat in a horseshoe

38

shape around them. Everything about her new room was welcoming and designed for

comfort.

The Teacher

One of the central reasons I selected this site was because of the teacher, Mrs.
Oakley. I was looking for an experienced teacher whose classroom would allow me a
chance to see students’ literacies play some role in the classroom during the school year.
In this way, it was essential that I selected a site with a teacher who made an attempt to
represent diverse texts and literacies in the classroom (e.g., letters to authors, critical
responses, artistic responses, descriptive stories, film reviews, and opportunities for
multimedia presentations). At the end of the 2003-2004 school year, after exchanging a
series of emails and visiting her classroom, Mrs. Oakley offered for me to undergo this
study in her classroom. We corresponded over the summer and I began meeting her and
sitting in her class in the middle of October, and began getting to know the students and
the routines of the classroom.

Although this was the first time teaching ninth grade English for Mrs. Oakley, she
had taught 7th and 8th grade English language arts in the same district for over fifteen
years. Mrs. Oakley made the shift from teaching 8th grade to teaching two classes of
ninth grade English language arts and two sections of courses for juniors and seniors (on
of them being Advanced Placement Literature for seniors). Mrs. Oakley was excited to
move to the High School and be teaching a variety of English courses.

Mrs. Oakley saw herself as someone who tried not to censor students’ writing and
the books they read. She talked about topics that may be considered taboo in other

classes, and did not seem to shy away from issues that many teacher might have thought

39

 

were risky to discuss in school (e.g., Catholic priests involvement in the sex abuse
scandal, issues regarding whether we should be involved in the war in Iraq). This non-
censorship was important because it provided an opportunity for me to see how she and
the students were to negotiate the boundaries of these topics.

Through the local Writing Project, Mrs. Oakley participated in a community of
outstanding teachers, researchers and leaders who came together for four weeks in the
summer and periodically throughout the year to share their teaching experiences and
develop research projects that explore and highlight current theory in the teaching of
writing. She was knowledgeable of current research on literacy education and was
actively looking to always learn more. In addition to the writing project, she was also
part of the group that met to learn about cross cultural issues. Through this group, a few
years prior to the study, Mrs. Oakley received a Fulbright Study Award to collaborate
with other teachers to develop and teach a language arts curriculum in Nepal. Mrs.
Oakley had many of the qualities and experiences that would make this study in her

classroom a rich opportunity for examining the negotiation of literacies.

The Students

All the students in the classroom who gave consent were included in the study.
During the school year there were a total of 24 students that were in the class for at least a
semester, and 17 students agreed to participate in the study. Four of the students were
enrolled for only one semester (either the fall or spring semesters). The students were an
ethnically diverse group of students (see Figure 4). As a result of the nature of the class,

being a “untracked” required course for all ninth graders (except those who test out the

40

summer before), the students represent a diverse range of academic “levels” and abilities,

’9 6‘

where the class consisted of a mixture of “honors, average,” and “struggling” Students.

Figure 4. Participating Students’ Sex, Ethnicity, and Time Enrolled in the Class

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name Sex Ethnicity Only one
semester

Cadence * A F European American

Sam M European American X

Larissa A F European American

Pauliana F Polish

Ruth F Kenyan X

Joshua * A M European American

Amisi F Egyptian X

J anu A M Nepalese

James A M European American

Stephen * A M Korean

Anthony M European American X

Skye A F European American

Miles A M African American

Ella A F European American

Marcus * A M European American

Brianna * A F African American

Catherine A F European American X

 

* Focal student
A Interviewed

After I had been involved in the classroom events for some time, using purposive
sampling (Bogdan & Biklin, 1998), I selected five students as informants from the
general participants. These students were representative of the cultural diversity as well
as their participation in whole class discussions, some being quite vocal in class (i.e.,
Brianna, Marcus), and others being fairly quiet (i.e., Stephen and Joshua). In making the
decision of the key informants, I selected at least three students (i.e., Marcus, Brianna,
and Cadence) who were key members of the classroom discussions in ways that
contributed to the negotiating the literacies of the classroom. While I collected data on

and came to know all the participants in the class during the year, I focused my attention

41

 

on the focal participants more specifically (i.e., when in small group work, out of class)
as a way to provide rich data about the ways in which students work within and through

the boundaries of what it means to learn English in the classroom.

Marcus

Marcus was a dedicated athlete and tried hard in school in order to earn decent
grades in all of his classes. Much of Marcus’ involvement with literacy was a result of
his athletic and social identities in the home, on the practice field, and in the school.
Marcus was a tall, athletic, and successful in football, basketball, and baseball. He was
an avid video gamer, being one of several of the male students in the class who played
video games at home on regular basis. Marcus managed to balance his classes, sports,
friends, and family during the year, without much observable stress or effort. He was
European American and turned 15 during the school year. Marcus was quite articulate
about the role that literacy played in his life, both in class discussions, as well as in his
interviews, and was a central figure in many of the events that were important in the

negotiation of the literacies of the classroom.

Brianna

As an active member of a local martial arts school, Brianna had competed
successfully at the national level since she was young. She was tall and confident, and
determined to succeed in school. Not afraid to ask questions, she became a vocal
member of the class during whole group discussions. She admitted several times that she
loved being in Mrs. Oakley’s class because she had so much fun. She repeatedly

received full scores on with her projects, and performed well in all the writing

42

 

assignments. She did not like reading, but was willing to do what she had to do for an A

in the class. Brianna was African American and turned 15 during the school year.

Cadence

A self-proclaimed “bookworm,” Cadence was an avid reader of fiction. She
would tell the class about what she was reading, and would confidently contribute to
class discussions the authors that she thought were great (e.g., R.L. Stein). Cadence also
had written short stories that she shared with her friends, and wrote her own music that
she published on her online journal. Her mother was a creative writing teacher at the
local community college, and this provided Cadence with confidence and support for her
own reading and writing. According to Mrs. Oakley, though, Cadence underachieved in
the course, sometimes not passing in work, other times talking with other students and
not paying attention. Regardless of her level of performance in class, she positioned
herself and was positioned by others as a competent reader and writer. Cadence was

European American and turned 15 during the school year.

Stephen

Always precise and particular in his class projects, Stephen aimed for perfection
in every aspect of the class. Even his handwriting was like a work of art, as he spent
much time being extremely deliberate in his penmanship, even for small assignments and
class quizzes. Stephen had moved with his family from Korea three years ago, and his
father was often traveling back and forth between the US. and Korea. He was quite
proficient in speaking English, and said that he still prefers to read books written in

Korean rather than English. Stephen had high aspirations for college, volunteering at the

43

library and being active in sports, because he heard that colleges looked for students who

had community service. Stephen was Korean and 15 years of age.

Joshua

Sitting next to Stephen for most of the year, Joshua and Stephen became friends.
Told that he “doesn’t try” by Stephen, Joshua always had other things that he was doing
that seemed to be more important than what was happening in class. At one point in the
year, when the class was in the computer lab writing their formal essays, Joshua was
composing a half page email to on of his friends. Cleverly hiding this email from the
teacher with a paper propped up on the screen, he spent nearly all of class composing
emails. An avid email user, with five email accounts, Joshua was sure that he would
have enough digital space for his active emailing life. It seemed that Joshua would do
what he needed in the course and in school to perform at a level where he would pass and
not upset his parents or the teachers. Joshua was European American and 14 years of

age.

Researcher ’s role

In learning about others through active participation in their lives and
activities, the fieldworker cannot and should not attempt to be a fly on the
wall (Emerson et al., 1995, p.3).
My participation in the classroom was not one of a “fly on the wall.” Rather than
thinking about my presence in the classroom as strictly that of an observer in the back of
the room taking notes, remaining distant to the teacher and students, I chose to position

myself in the classroom in ways that my participation would become a valuable part of

mum-3... film. .
I

 

It
mh it‘ll“
”U; I w.
}LKuli \\

193.51. I

$734136

15 iii: {6
1‘ .- .
Max:130

h;,‘
home

‘k‘ 15 i "ll".

my data collection. The researcher’s ability to negotiate and become a participant in the
social community is a crucial factor in the quality of data that is collected (Emerson et al.,
1995). I believed that in order to collect the data that was important for my question, I
needed to be a part of the classroom community and someone that the participants trusted
and would feel comfortable talking to.

Through my interactions and relationships with the teacher and students, I
remained a participant-observer, where I rarely “participated” in class discussions, but
was a fixed staple in the classroom during the school year. My role was one of a college
graduate student who was learning about the ways in which students learn and use
literacy in their lives, both inside and outside school. When in the classroom I was there
to support the students with their work and provided feedback when they asked. On the
other hand, I did not formally assess students’ work or take positions in which I was seen
as the teacher who grades or sets and enforces the mics—this was the job of the
classroom teacher. In the few instances when Mrs. Oakley left me with the class, or I
was in class before she made it there, students would routinely act in ways that would not
have happened if I was a classroom teacher. On a couple of occasions, the students
engaged in activities that they would not normally do when Mrs. Oakley or another
teacher was there (e.g., threw balls back and forth to each other). On one particular
occasion, when Mrs. Oakley was running a couple minutes late to class, and Brianna and
Anthony decided they were going to block Mrs. Oakley out of the room. As the students
looked at me, while bracing the door shut, I quickly realized that this was a time for me to
allow them to be students, and for me to not be a disciplinarian. Mrs. Oakley managed to

convince them to open the door, and she came in with a smile on her face. While it was

45

14"an m. .

 

F\ \{ih- .
__. ;\
1"
lurk\ 5'5
'I
I
a:
s l

I
.4 4 It
‘I\Il

A\

'57.,-

.,J5\-.l~,4
. _.
.1 "H,"

in good fun, it was a moment for me to establish myself as someone who would not team
up with Mrs. Oakley against them.

My participation in the classroom and in the lives of the adolescents was an
important part of the research process. My immersed role allowed me access to Spaces
for examining the way that the teacher and students negotiated the literacies in the
classroom, as well as provide access to spaces outside the classroom where I was be able
to observe students as they participated in after-school settings (e.g., clubs, band, or
sports team) and in their out-of-school communities (e.g., with their family, at church,
circle of friends).

It was my intention to help out as much as Mrs. Oakley needed in the classroom.
Usually this took the form of running to the office to make copies or to talk about
possible activities she was contemplating in other courses. Through our conversations,
Mrs. Oakley came to understand my participation there as working with her to learn
about literacy learning in her classroom, as well as to understand the different ways that
students in her class used literacy in all parts of their lives. By letting her know that I was
a graduate student and that I had some (but little) experience as a full time teacher, I
believe she saw me as a student of the profession and someone she could “teach”, as well
as someone who also might be a professional colleague providing helpful (and different)

ideas throughout the year about the class.

Data Collection Procedures

Methodologically, this qualitative study borrowed from ethnographic traditions in
education. As a source for my analysis, I collected the following data using ethnographic

methods.

46

 

Classroom Observations

During my involvement in the project, from mid-October to the end of May of the
2004-2005 school year, I attended and observed Mrs. Oakley’s English class on average
3 class periods (each an hour) per week. Spread over the duration of the study, I
conducted classroom observations for 71 class periods. At the end of each observation,
using the field jottings and audiotapes (I had audio tapes for the last 56 observations), I
wrote ethnographic fieldnotes, narrative descriptions of my observations at the site
(Emerson et al., 1995), and transcribed dialogue when it helped enrich the description.

My primary aim of the study was to explore how the teacher and students
negotiated the literacy practices of the classroom. Negotiation was defined as the co-
construction of meaning, a process in the classroom in which people mutually construct
ideas of what is accepted and valued through their interactions with one another and
through the sociocultural practices of the group (Dyson & Genishi, 2005; Erickson,
1986). To that end, the purpose of the classroom observations and the written fieldnotes
was to understand the practices and principles that were constructed by the teacher and
students as they negotiated the norms, roles, and expectations of English and literacy
learning in the classroom. By focusing my attention on the activities, materials, and the
dialog in the classroom, as it was understood in the local meanings of this particular
classroom culture, I strove to understand how the participants make sense of what is

happening and how they are jointly constructing the practices of the classroom.

Collection of Artifacts

Artifacts were an important source of data collection during the study. These

artifacts consisted of samples of students’ work (e.g., essays, short responses, multimodal

47

 

projects), texts the teacher handed out to the students (e.g., assignment sheets and class
handouts), and other texts around the classroom that were an integral part of the
classroom community (e.g., the poster of Gandhi in the back of the room). In the cases
that I could make photocopies of these I would and handed them back to students. For
the multimodal projects, I would either take pictures or make a scanned copy of the text
to attempt to capture the color and visual design that a normal black and white
photocopier would not be able to attain. For some of the students, I had copies of email
messages from our correspondences, and copies of their written and multimedia work on
their on-line journals.

I also collected artifacts that were part of the larger school community. Signs that
read announcements, posters advertising the literary journal, and the bi-weekly student
newspaper were all examples of artifacts collected in the larger school-wide context. In
addition, I collected any district wide newsletters and policies related to literacy and

English.

Interviews

I interviewed Mrs. Oakley and the participating students in the class. I conducted
two different forms of interviews in order to learn about their understandings of the ,
literacy practices of the classroom and of the students’ everyday lives. One type of
interview was short and improvisational, and they consisted of the discussions with the
teacher and students that occurred in-between class periods, or during the class period as
they are reading, writing, and working on activities for class. In these interviews with the
teacher and students, I was able to ask questions I had about an interaction or activity, or

to probe the participants about what they are thinking when in the middle of activities.

48

The second form of interviews were semi-structured interviews for both the teacher and
participants scheduled outside of the classroom to allow for time and space for a
conversation that may not occur within the activity of the classroom (e.g., student
reaction to teacher’s actions, the teacher’s purpose for certain activities).

I interviewed 125 of the 17 participating students (see Figure 4 for the students
who were interviewed). The semi-structured interviews with the students were used to
explore the different ways that they used literacy in their lives (see Appendix B for
student interview protocol) and to gain insight into the texts that were important to them,
the purposes for the literacy practices, and the social context in which the practices
occurred. At the beginning of the interview, I informed the students that I was interested
in the many things they read and wrote in their lives, including letters, music lyrics,
posters, movies, video games, and road signs. For the interviews, I used different
prompts to help the students think about different situations and social domains in which
literacy may be used (see Appendix B for interview protocols). I usually started with
these prompts; however, the interviews often took the form of a discussion and rarely
ever went in the same order. In addition to the prompts for texts in their lives, I also
asked them about their views of what literacy meant to them, and what they believed the
goals of literacy were to be in the classroom. These interviews were conducted during
their specific study hall time (a block of time in the day that each student has to meet with

teachers or to study), at times that were convenient to them.

 

5 There were a few students who I was not able to interview due to the busy school
schedules and their busy lives, and/or the students leaving the class before I could get the
opportunity to interview them.

49

I informally interviewed Mrs. Oakley three times during the year. We often
informally spoke before and after class about how students were responding to the texts
and activities, and her rationales for certain activities. However, during the semi-
structured interview, I generated a list of questions or points-of—discussion based on
themes or aspects of confusion for me that I was reflecting upon in my fieldnotes. These
semi-structured interviews were designed for me to gain insight into her beliefs of
literacy, and her reasoning for particular activities, texts, and lessons she designed for the

COUI'SC.

Out-of-Class Observations

In addition to the classroom observations, I also observed students outside of the
classroom. During the year, I observed focal students in other courses, in their home
contexts, at ball games, and in social activities. Observing these contexts allowed me to
explore the variety of literacies associated with particular social practices that were not
necessarily evident in the interviews and classroom observations. As in the classroom
observations, I collected artifacts and recorded fieldnotes of the ways in which they read
or wrote texts, the purposes, and social contexts for these practices. These observations
were aimed to gain a rich understanding of building an understanding of the role literacy
played in their lives, as well as the literate resources the students brought to the
classroom.

Utilizing a variety of tools for data collection (e.g., extensive observation in both
the classroom, informal interviews, the collection of artifacts, and observations in out-of-

class contexts), I was able to collect different forms of data that would help me address

50

my research question, as well as triangulate the various forms of data during analysis

(Erickson, 1986).

Data Analysis Procedures

Inductive data analysis began shortly after data collection started. Through open
coding (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999) of the data, I began to cluster episodes of fieldnote
data into themes to help me organize and develop a language for understanding “the
social meaning or importance of what [was] happening” (Dyson & Genishi, 2005, p. 85).
Through this open coding, I developed a small list of initial codes (e.g., student questions,
official and unofficial texts, technology) with the goal of coming to an understanding of
the complexity of the negotiation process and the students’ literate resources they drew
upon (see Appendix C for development of codes). In addition to the coding, I also wrote
memos that included initial ideas and evolving hypotheses about the analysis of data
(Purcell-Gates, 2004).

Many’qualitative researchers have argued that meaning is not found in the data;
the researcher constructs meaning using the frames of reference as he or she creates and
analyzes the data (Emerson et al., 1995; Erickson, 1986). It was during this reading and
refining of the coding scheme that I fully came to understand the inductive process of
qualitative research. As I read and reread the data, and refined my coding themes, I
struggled with how I was understanding what was official and what counted as unofficial.
Early in the analysis process, I understood official texts as anything that the teacher
endorsed, as it was part of the official classroom culture. However, at times, this was
difficult to code because rarely did Mrs. Oakley ever rule out any text that students

mentioned in her classroom. By acknowledging a wide variety of texts, she would blur

51

 

the boundaries between official and unofficial texts. So as I reread the fieldnotes, I came
to understand other ways (that were not necessarily explicit) that Mrs. Oakley—as part of
the institution—created boundaries between what was official and unofficial (i.e., having
required texts, reading certain texts to look intelligent). Additionally, this allowed me to
see that Mrs. Oakley also did a variety of things that blurred these boundaries between
official and unofficial, making what once was normally unofficial something that was
valued in the classroom (i.e., discussing a comic as a classroom text).

Much of this change in thinking pushed me to reconsider how I was thinking
about negotiation. Rather than thinking about the negotiation of texts as a process
(usually involving a form of resistance and the transformation of a practice) that happens
between the teacher and students, like I understood it prior to the study, I began to see
literacy negotiation as the constant processes of maintaining and expanding the official
practices of the classroom. Expanding and maintaining did occur as an explicit
negotiation around a text, like that of the introduction when Mrs. Oakley’s laughs off
Joshua’s intentional misspelling and challenging of the official conventions. However, I
also came to understand maintaining and expanding boundaries as being important in the
way that a course is designed and in how the literacy practices are constructed. As I
reread the data, I moved from seeing negotiation as a process that involved visible
resistance and/or transformation (i.e., students refusing to read an official text) to a
process that involved maintaining and expanding the boundaries of the official.

With this new refined understanding of negotiation (among other refined themes)
1 then read through the fieldnotes, interviews, students’ work, and my memos, and

continued to refine the initial codes as well as identify new ones. In addition to the initial

52

and general coding, towards the end of the data collection phase of the study, I underwent
additional methods of analyses, and utilized analytic tools useful for studying language
and literacy in social practices (D. Bloome et al., 2005; Dyson & Genishi, 2005). As the
purpose of this study was to determine how literacies and English was negotiated in the
classroom, and the role of students’ literacies in this process, I focused on the literacy
events and practices as a way of organizing and making sense of the activity of the
classroom. Literacy events were defined as any activity involving the use of media
(print, drawing, picture, music) for some purpose (Dyson, 1993, p. 27). Organizing by
literacy event provided me the opportunity to keep the texts and interactions situated in
the context (i.e., purposes, contextual meanings, norms). From these literacy events, I
inferred the general cultural ways that the participants utilized texts (adapted from Barton
and Hamilton, 1998). By organizing the data by literacy events and practices, I was able
to examine the construction of literacy practices, the texts that were important for each
event, and the ways in which the production of the practices maintained and expanded the
boundaries of literacies in the classroom.

In addition to organizing the data by literacy event and practice, I organized the
data by informant. For each of the informants, I studied the literacy events, interviews,
and out of class fieldnotes to examine how each of the focal students’ utilized literacies in
their everyday lives, which resources they integrated into the class, and how they
participated in the negotiation of literacies in the classroom.

After coding the data as described above, I looked for key themes across the
variety of data sources and organized related items based on patterns (LeCompte &

Schensul, 1999). In this pattern level of analysis, I further developed a set of categories

53

with which to describe the shaping of literacy practices in the classroom, and the
resources that students brought to the classroom. I grouped several of the codes (related
to the processes and influences) under the larger category of maintaining and expanding
boundaries, and developed codes for understanding the various literacy practices in the
classroom, as well as the resources that students brought with them. Among the codes
that I chose to capture the negotiation process were: touchstones, textual hierarchy,
springboarding, offering texts, official texts and practices, and unofficial texts and
practices (see Appendix C for development of codes). These themes led to developing
assertions (Dyson & Genishi, 2005) about the negotiation of literacies in the classroom,
as the expansion and maintenance of the classroom practices. Through this process, I
looked for disconfirrning evidence or potential data that might contest my assertions, as
well as engaged the research literature as a way of making sense of and complicating my

analyses.

54

CHAPTER 3: CONSTRUCTIN G ENGLISH: THE NEGOTIATION OF TEXTS

IN NEW TIMES

Late in the school year, Mrs. Oakley is discussing the Literary Bake-off activity,
where the students create a cake or some type of food that reflects a particular
symbol, theme, or character from a text they had read together during the year.
For the activity, the students will get a chance to vote for which cake or other
food best represents the text. ‘

Mrs. Oakley: Prizes will be awarded, I’ll make a ballot, and you’ll vote for the
top three. For the top three I’ll give some kind of prize.

Larissa: Any cash? (some students to begin to laugh)

Mrs. Oakley: I was thinking more in terms of like a small gift certificate to
maybe—

Brianna: The mall

Larissa: McDonaldsTM

Brianna: The mall

Mrs. Oakley: No, like Barnes & /NobleTMl

Marcus: /The mall/ (Not believing that Brianna just said what she did.)

The class erupts into laughter, including Brianna.

Mrs. Oakley: Would you rather have a [certificate] to the movies?

Several students say yes.

Brianna: Barnes & NobleTM? Mrs. Oakley, are you—

Marcus: She’s an English /teacher!/

Mrs. Oakley: lBarnes/ & NobleTM has music too. (Brianna and others are still
laughing). Or [name of local ice-cream shop], would you like a
gift certificate to [name of local ice-cream Shop].

Several students are talking and offering what they would like the certificate to

be.

Brianna: I like Barnes & Noblem, I just don’t read though.

Mrs. Oakley: Barnes & NobleTM and Schuler’sTM [Bookstore] both carry music
too, so—

Larissa: They have DVDs too.

Mrs. Oakley: Coming from an English teacher it is probably best that I give you
that [Barnes & NobleTM gift certificate], so we’ll see.

In the interaction above, Mrs. Oakley attempts to think of a reward that will spark

students’ interest, but one that also is appropriate for students to engage with as a result

55

of her English class. Through this interaction, questions arise as to what an English
teacher should encourage students to consume (i.e., books, music, film, ice cream)? Is it
appropriate for an English teacher to encourage students to watch popular movies or buy
music rather than the classics? Should the prize consist of a gift certificate to buy only
official texts that are part of the literary cannon? Underlying these questions are
assumptions of the teacher’s role and the participants’ constructions of English. The
teacher and students are in the process of negotiating what it means to be an English
student and teacher, and what the boundaries of appropriate texts and practices are for
English students. An integral part of “doing” English involves the negotiation of what
counts as “official” texts, what texts become selected for study, and what texts are valued
as resources for meaning making. While the focus of this particular interaction concerns
the appropriateness of texts for students’ out-of-school time, the negotiation of what
counts as an appropriate text was integral to the construction of English in the classroom
throughout the entire year.

Specific interactions like the one above, where the negotiation of what counts as
an English text becomes an explicit focus of the interaction, are rare instances during the
course of the school year. The construction of what counts as an English text occurs
throughout the English class (as well as in a variety of contexts, in and out of the
classroom), and is largely constructed in the assignment and study of the selected texts of
the classroom. I will argue that it is through a variety of processes throughout the year
where the teacher and students maintained and expanded the valued practices of the
classroom, negotiating what English is during this time of change. In the following

sections, I will discuss the many texts that were central to the classroom literacy

56

practices, the way in which the teacher and the students maintained and expanded upon
traditional notions of “official” texts, as well as the beliefs associated with the hierarchy

of texts that were important to the practices of the course.

The Official Literary Texts of the Formal Curriculum

At the heart of Mrs. Oakley’s 9‘h grade English class was the reading of a variety
of literary texts—novels, plays, short stories, and a Greek tragedy (See Table 1). These
novels, plays, and short stories became much of the subject of English content (i.e., plot
storylines, knowledge of characters), as well as the main vehicle in which literary
analytic skills were learned (i.e., character development, symbolism). Therefore, these
texts served as the cornerstone for many of the pedagogical units and literacy practices
that the class would engage in during the year, including teacher-led shared reading and
literature discussions, quizzes and exams, individual written or artistic responses, take—
home reading assignments, and from time-to-time, in-class silent reading. It was partly
through the study of these official texts that the students and teacher came to negotiate
which texts were valued, which were worth serious study, and which were “official”.

All of the texts assigned to the students were fictional pieces of literature that had
been approved by the English department. The curriculum was designed to include texts
that would introduce students to “classical and contemporary literature”. Therefore,
traditional texts of the English curriculum were included, such as Homer’s The Odyssey,
Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Hemingway’s The Old Man and the Sea, and a
collection of short stories (“Scarlet Ibis,” by James Hurst; “The Secret Life of Walter
Mitty,” James Thurber). These texts have long been part of the high school English

cannon (Applebee, 1993), and reflect the school’s curricular focus in the mythology of

57

ancient Greece, Shakespearean plays, and American literature. The curriculum also
included literature by contemporary authors (Bean Trees by Barbara Kingsolver; At Risk
by Alice Hoffman) as well as texts that reflect multicultural and cross-cultural issues
(Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry; To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee). Each
of the texts fell into at least one of the three thematic categories (from innocence to
experience, the heroic journey, and multiple perspectives), and many of the texts had
topics that reflected contemporary issues in students’ lives (AIDS, multiculturalism,
poverty). Indeed, the curriculum was designed to introduce students to both traditional
and contemporary literature, while also at times focusing on themes that reflected the age
of the students (“from innocence to experience”) and the current issues of the day (e.g.,

growing cultural diversity).

58

Figure 5. Assigned Novels, Plays, and Short Stories, in Order in which they were
Studied

 

 

The Old Man and the Sea* (Ernest Hemingway)

A Selection of Short Stories:
“Scarlet Ibis” (James Hurst)
“The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” (James Thurber)

Bean Trees (Barbara Kingsolver)
At Risk (Alice Hoffman)

Students chose to read one of the following books for their
“Reading Buddies” assignment:

Bless the Beasts and the Children (Glendon Swarthout)

So Far from the Bamboo Grove (Yoko Kawashawa Watkins)

When the Legends Die (Hal Borland)

Waiting for the Rain (Sheila Gordon)

Children of the River (Linda Crew)

Jemmy (Jon Hassler)

To Kill a Mockingbird * (Harper Lee)
Raisin in the Sun* (Lorraine Hansberry)
Romeo & Juliet* (William Shakespeare)

The Odyssey*A (Homer)

 

 

* Selected by the English department as required texts of all English classes; the rest
were part of a list of optional texts
A Was not able to get to during the year

59

 

Maintaining Official Texts

Curricular Decisions and Developing “T ouchstones”

While these official texts of the formal curriculum played a central role in the
day-to-day events of the classroom, the decisions as to which texts were to be the focus
was not entirely Mrs. Oakley’s. The curriculum established by the school’s English
department6 designated five texts as required reading for all 9th grade classes, and
included a list of optional texts from which Mrs. Oakley could choose to fill the
remainder of texts for her course (the required texts as well as the optional texts she chose
are listed in Figure 5). Therefore, Mrs. Oakley had little space for making decisions to
incorporate particular texts that fell outside of the established curriculum that she deemed
important for students. This lack of choice (outside of the alternative list) in her
curriculum was rarely something that was discussed by Mrs. Oakley or the students. On
one occasion, Mrs. Oakley made her constraints transparent to her students, revealing
how the English department influences the texts of the classroom:

As teachers, we have some books that we have to teach as a whole class, like The

Old Man and the Sea, To Kill A Mockingbird, and Romeo and Juliet, then there is

another list of books that we can either teach as a whole class or we can do in

small groups, or we can do individual novel projects, or whatever we want with
them.
Later in the year, Mrs. Oakley explains that one of the reasons that they spend very little

time much in the class with creative writing is that “there is a certain cannon of literature

 

6 Since Mrs. Oakley was new to the English department and the High School, she was not
part of the decision process that led to the required texts.

60

that we have to cover here at the high school, it’s just-part of the program.” Making this
departmental decision known to the students in these interactions contributed to
establishing the fact that there are systematic forces outside of the classroom that
contribute to the regulation texts. Revealing that a group of English teachers have agreed
upon these texts further reinforces the importance and value of these texts for the
”students.

Mrs. Oakley rarelyexplained why they were reading the particular text or piece of
literature. At times, she would highlight an author’s powerful use of description, saying
that it is some of the best symbolism or character description she has ever read.
However, the literary texts they spent weeks studying were accepted as normal and
appropriate for 9th grade English students. Rarely did the students vocally question,
resist, or express excitement over the text they were reading. Throughout the semester,
the students accepted the selected official texts as routine, normal, and an aspect of the
class that they had no real choice in changing. The one large exception to this was the
students’ disgust of The Old Man and the Sea, which I will discuss later in the chapter
when discussing beliefs associated with official texts.

While Mrs. Oakley did not individually select many of these assigned traditional
texts, she did believe that these texts provided “touchstones” for the students and were
important for the students in preparation for future classes. Mrs. Oakley believed that 9'“
grade English was responsible for informing students of specific influential characters
and texts that were expected for first year students. This included knowing about the
characters and storylines of texts that all classes were required to read during the year

(e.g., The Odyssey, Romeo & Juliet). After not being able to read the abridged version of

61

tuu' . h‘xn

 

llk' (

.L. -
AI: (ii

i ..‘u
‘3‘»

e

The Odyssey to fully read Romeo and Juliet due to a lack of time,Mrs. Oakley was upset
at the possible ramifications for this lack of attention to these canonical texts:

I’d like the 10th grade teachers to at least be able to say, ‘well you know this

character from...’ They are supposed to have some touchstones and be able to

talk about those characters like in Romeo and Juliet with some proficiency.
This desire for students to have “touchstones” was evident throughout the semester and
was an important impetus for much of the decisions that Mrs. Oakley made for the
students. At various times in the semester, she would highlight certain references that
were common in particular literary works, with the hope that the students would have
these “touchstones” for access in the future.

The “touchstones” that Mrs. Oakley wanted students to learn surpassed characters
and storylines and focused on literary traditions. When reading To Kill a Mockingbird,
Mrs. Oakley focused on the way in which Harper Lee created a sense of the history of the
land and people, and how her techniques reflect what many other southern writers
attempt to capture in their literature. She explains to the class:

There is a whole southern tradition of writers, Carson McCullers, and there is

Tennessee Williams, and William Faulkner. A lot of these writers you will be

exposed to when you hit English 3 with American Literature. They have a deep

sense to the longing to the place where they are. You will see this in To Kill a

Mockingbird as [Harper Lee] talks about the family history, and how that evolves

over time.

Presenting the literary elements in To Kill a Mockingbird as part of a larger tradition they

will continue to explore as they take other English classes in future years, Mrs. Oakley

62

creates opportunities for students to have these “touchstones” for which to read future
texts. An integral part of the 9‘h grade English experience, Mrs. Oakley sees her task as
preparing the students for future engagement in practices by creating a series of
characters and texts that they may utilize in future courses and during future experiences
with texts. These pressures for students to have these “touchstones” for later classes
influenced the curricular decisions of the classroom, and were integral to the pressures to

teach and expect students to read and remember these official texts.

Values and Beliefs Associated with Official Texts

“The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who

can ’t read them. ” -Mark Twain

Written in bold across the top of the page, Mark Twain’s quote headlines the
recommended reading list of over 200 books Mrs. Oakley gave to the students for their
summer break. Works by Emily Bronte, William Shakespeare, Daniel Defoe, Ralph
Ellison, Sylvia Plath, and William Faulkner appeared on the “Recommended Reading
List” list of good books recommended to the students. This document highlights two
important beliefs that were integral to the construction of texts in the classroom,
contributing to maintaining the authority of the traditional cannon of literature and of
literary studies in English education.

The first line of argument is that there is such a thing as a hierarchy of books, and
texts that are not plays or novels that might appear on the list are of little value. This
belief is part of a long tradition of valuing select books over others (H. Bloome, 1994),
and was integral to the construction of texts in the classroom. At times, students did not

recognize other books (e.g., non-fiction, romance, mysteries) as “real” books. During a

63

Side conversation in one class period, a student told me “I have a book right now that I’m
reading. Wellnot a book, a biography.” For this English class, fictional texts (classical
and contemporary) were recognized as the privileged texts. These texts were the center
of most of the activity in the classroom (i.e., writing and assessments in reaction to these
texts, literature discussions), and were considered the serious texts of study, the official
curriculum.

Connected with this belief in the hierarchy of books was the idea that reading
certain texts would lead to a privileged and heightened intellectual position. Reading
canonical books or traditional fiction associated with the English discipline revealed a
person’s intellectual rigor and sophistication. This was most articulated in the course
when students were expressing their disgust for The Old Man and the Sea.

Throughout the year, students would often mention how much they disliked The

Old Man and the Sea. Several months after reading The Old Man and the Sea

students still expressed disgust with the book. Realizing this dislike and

understanding that it has become an aspect of the class, Mrs. Oakley enters in on
the classroom banter.

Student: (Entered Mrs. Oakley’s class from a different English class) You

guys already read Old Man and the Sea?

Mrs. Oakley: Oh, yah -

Student: Thank Jesus!

Mrs. Oakley: (Laughing) Did you think that you were going to have to read it

again? No we already [read] it.

Student: It’s about an old man and boy fishing and buying beer.

Mrs. Oakley: They know it, they know every detail of that book. They loved it.

Cadence: Yah, right.

Mrs. Oakley: They loved it.

Cadence: She’s being really sarcastic. (The class erupts in laughter)

Mrs. Oakley: You know you guys, when you are at a party someday, and you are
sitting there and you could say, ‘Hey have you read any

64

Hemingway?’ You could talk about the fact that you read The Old
Man and the Sea, you’re going to impress the crap of somebody,
you will.

Cadence: I’ll tell them that I hate that book. (Students and Mrs. Oakley

laughing)

Impressing people with reading Hemingway was not Mrs. Oakley’s sole reason
for teaching the students this particular book. She often would focus on the beauty of the
language or the relationships you attain with characters as reasons for reading. However,
the fact that impressing people was mentioned as an important rationale for reading The
Old Man and the Sea reinforces the idea that certain books remain privileged and worth
reading (even though it may not be a good experience), because it can provide you some
sophistication and cultural capital in certain situations.

Closely connected to the sophistication argument is the idea that studying
Hemingway and other traditional English texts will enhance one’s general intellectual
skills. This argument, while embedded in Twain’s quote and summer reading document,
was also provided for taking Advanced Placement Literature. Responding to Brianna’s
question of why she would want to take the Advanced Placement Literature course as a
senior, Mrs. Oakley explained that “an AP. Literature class will train you to be an
absolute thinker, writer, analyzer of things.” Therefore, not only do classical texts
provide sophistication and “culture”, studying official texts in an Advanced Placement
setting will also make the student into a more sophisticated thinker. This connection
between canonical literature and intellectual abilities is a belief that underlies the

recommendation to read canonical fiction over the summer, so that the students may

improve their “thinking” and “analysis” skills.

65

The second line of reasoning that follows from this quote and the summer reading
document is the hierarchy between the types of texts with which one may engage. By
establishing a list of summer reading containing only literary fiction, it reinforces the
belief that certain forms of texts are worth one’s time, while other texts are not. This
notion that literary texts were of higher regard was integral to what counted as texts in the
classroom. Although other forms of texts were integrated into the classroom (e.g., comic, I
film, music), they never received the formal attention that the fictional print-based texts
received. This hierarchy was most prevalent when literature was placed in contrast to

film texts. Although Mrs. Oakley and the students included film texts in discussions and

 

curricular decisions, these texts rarely received the curricular space that would allow
these texts the seriousness that fictional texts were afforded (see later section for
discussion of the integration of film texts). Connected to this belief was the idea that
print-based texts deserve serious study, whereas discussing and engaging with other
forms of texts (e.g., film, music, cartoon) involved just playful activity.

Valuing print-based texts over other multimodal texts has a long tradition in the
English discipline (C. Luke, 2000; Scholes, 1998). This practice diminishes numerous
other texts that fall outside the traditional print-based texts privileged in English
classrooms. As many scholars have pointed out, these non—print centered texts and
multimodal texts, such as movies, music, weblogs and online journals are valuable texts
in sophisticated literacy practices (Alvermann, Hagood, & Williams, 2001; Knobel,
1999). Not only are these texts integral to multifaceted lives of the students, but they are
important for the changing literacy landscape the students must negotiate in the future

(Cope & Kalantzis, 2000). However, this belief in the hierarchy of texts (canonical

66

fiction and print over other forms of texts), which still underlies activity in English
classrooms, continues to be an important belief that maintains the official texts of the 9‘h

grade English classroom.

The Expansion of Texts through the Teacher’s Curriculum

Although Mrs. Oakley had little choice in the texts that She selected for her
course, she found curricular opportunities for her students to engage with texts that were
outside of the standard curriculum. Many of the official texts offered were print-based
texts, either in the form of novels, plays, or short stories. In addition to these selections,
Mrs. Oakley integrated a number of texts into the class that were not part of the standard
texts designated by the English department, as represented in Table 3.1. I

While poetry is often an important aspect of many English classrooms, in this
class poetry was not a part of the 9th grade English curriculum. Therefore, one of the
ways that Mrs. Oakley expanded the curriculum was by including a poetry unit during the
second half of the semester. Although poetry was not part of the official curriculum,
Mrs. Oakley intended it to be an important part of the 9‘h grade English experience. In
the poetry unit, the class dedicated a few weeks of the year to reading, writing, and
discussing poetry. Mrs. Oakley compiled a packet of poetry, consisting of poems from
an anthology of poetry for adolescents, as well as other poems from contemporary poets,
and included some of her own poems. After the students wrote poems, these poems
became texts that were shared in the class, with some of the students reading and
discussing them aloud.

Mrs. Oakley also integrated a variety of more multimodal texts into the

curriculum that included texts that were graphic texts, a combination of print and graphic,

67

musical texts, film texts, and events and experiences that were quintessentially
multimodal in nature (e.g., a celebration of Martin Luther King Jr. at the local University
where the event included song, dance, poetry, and some of his speeches and writings; a

film and discussion of Sudanese refugees’ experiences).

Graphic and Print texts: Cartoons and Comic Strips

Texts that combined graphics and print, usually in the form of traditional comics
strips, were one of the more frequent of these multimodal texts that were integrated into
the curriculum. A common literacy practice for the class was to be introduced to new
vocabulary words through a vocabulary packet provided by Mrs. Oakley about every
week or two. In this packet, there would be a page for each of the twenty words the
students had to learn the meaning. On each page a word was represented by a cartoon
intended to help the student remember the meaning of the word. For example, in one of
the packets, the word to learn was bedlam, and the cartoon displayed lambs jumping and
causing commotion on a bed. Underneath the cartoon was the quote, “BEDLAMB in the
LAMB’S BED” (capitalization in original). At the top of the page was a definition of the
word, and underneath the cartoon and quote were three sentences using bedlam in a
sentence. Mrs. Oakley would allow the students time during class to read through the
packets and use the graphics to help them remember the meanings of the words.

Using cartoons for learning words were sole repeated practice of using graphic
texts in the classroom; however, cartoons were given space in the classroom at different
times during the year. Mrs. Oakley included cartoons that she cut out from the
newspaper in assignments and quizzes that she gave to the students during the year.

Usually the comic was just something that students would read on their own if they chose

68

to do so. In a couple of instances, Mrs. Oakley used a cartoon to lead the class in a
discussion of a particular topic. On one such occasion, late in the year, she distributed
Gary Trudeau’s cartoon Doonesbury, where he titled it “Operation Iraqi Freedom: In
Memoriam,” and listed the US. men and women who had died in the war since April 28,
2004, in a way that resembled the names on the Vietnam Memorial. Not having enough
space in the cartoon for all the names of those US. soldiers who had died, Trudeau writes
at the end, “CONTINUED NEXT WEEK” (capitalization in original).

Mrs. Oakley introduces the cartoon by saying that Trudeau often comments on

political topics, and in this cartoon he presents a perspective on the war, one that

is different than just the normal “statistics on the front page, 12 people blown up
today, or 12 people die in suicide bombings.” She tells the class that she thinks
they are in order of death dates.

Catherine: That’s depressing, why did he do that?

Mrs. Oakley: Well, because this country has sort of forgotten in some ways that
we are at war, and every single name on here represents a family
and a group of friends that have lost this person. It is an extremely
powerful statement that Gary Trudeau is making here.

Mrs. Oakley goes on to tell the class that it appears to her that there is a very

different atmosphere now than there was during Vietnam, when they used to

display the names of those killed each day on the evening news.

Mrs. Oakley: I think we sometimes forget that there are young men and women
over in Iraq and Afghanistan that are dying. Many people are
questioning why we are even over there, or why we have been over
there this long, or how the heck we are going to get out of there
once we’re there. Anyway, so that’s a reminder about that, and I
think that putting the names just like on the Vietnam memorial—
have any of you gone to the Vietnam memorial in Washington

DC?

Student: I’ve been there...

69

Mrs. Oakley:
Student:

Mrs. Oakley:

What was your experience there?

Last year, I went with the 8’h grade trip to Washington, you got to
go—I walked through, me and my friend walked through, we
touched the whole wall, it was getting dark, it was the prettiest
time, it wasn’t pitch black but it was ( ).

A very moving experience. (The student goes on to discuss other
places she visited on that trip.)

Recognizing the importance stylistic decision, Mrs. Oakley pointed out the similarity

between the way in which Trudeau listed the names on the cartoon and the Vietnam

Memorial in Washington DC. Asking students who had seen the memorial opens up

space for students’ personal experiences and texts to enter into the classroom. Mrs.

Oakley’s initial intention was for the students to quickly view the cartoon, its message,

and then move on to the activities of the day. However, like other times in the year,

when powerful texts were provided, students asked questions and welcomed

conversations on social and political issues, and Mrs. Oakley allowed them to go where it

took them.
Mrs. Oakley:

Marcus:

Mrs. Oakley:
Marcus:

Mrs. Oakley:

Marcus:
Student:
Mrs. Oakley:
Student:

Well, we need to move on (She calls on Marcus who has had his
hand up since Mrs. Oakley started talking about Vietnam.)

1, I don’t know, the Vietnam War, there was, if you think the—you
don’t want to compare deaths, but if you amount of deaths in the
Vietnam War to the amount. . .It’s not even close to being the
amount. I think that is probably the reason why they are not it on
the news because it is not 300 people a day that are dying, or 3000
people a day that are dying.

But my point is, that to those families that //lose those//

//I know, Iknow.//

But your point is well taken, we had what, 58 thousand die in
Vietnam. _

There was way more than that.

The names on the wall, it was huge.

For some reason that number sticks in my head, but I’m not sure.
The wall was like that long. (motioning with her hands) The names
were very small, and people had to look real close.

70

Allowing students to continue the discussion provided an additional opportunity for the

student to utilize her experience with the Vietnam Memorial. This time, her experience

becomes an important resource for conveying the number of people who died in the war,

which was being disputed at the time. Although she could not give the number, the

student was able to communicate the experience of seeing the entirety of the wall with

the small printed names.

Later in the discussion, Catherine tells the class of her recent experience attending

a function where someone was not being quiet during a moment of silence. Mrs.

Oakley mentions how we take our freedom for granted, and we are fortunate

compared to many other countries.

Student:

Marcus:
Student:

Marcus:
Student:

Marcus:

Larissa:

Marcus:

That’s the thing, my thing with something like that, I think that we
are human beings and we shouldn’t have to be oh so thankful about
our freedom, because that’s our right to have our own freedom, I
understand—

That right there, that’s how your taking it for granted, //right
there.//

//No listen// I understand—

Take it for granted, //right there/l

//Listen// Would you stop talking. (giggling) Listen, I understand
exactly what you guys are talking about, take freedom for granted
and other people can’t do that, and stuff like that. . .they have a
right to have their freedom, no one is better than somebody else to

, have power over anybody. The only person that has power over me

is my momma.

Freedom costs money because people are going to always want to
oppress people so you have to fight to have your own freedom. I
don’t know, I have two cousins that just, they’re going over to Iraq
in about 3 months, but they have been waiting to go, they just
graduated HS, and they are waiting and waiting to go to Iraq, they
want to go over so bad.

But do they think that going over to Iraq is going to help our
freedom?

They are spreading freedom around, they want everyone to have
the freedom that we have.

71

Mrs. Oakley: Will take one more comment and then they need to go on. (Calling
on Cadence with her hand up)

Cadence: We talk about peace, but we go over there and kill them.

Skye: That is the only way you can solve anything,

Mrs. Oakley: Well—

Skye: You can’t go over there and try to talk to them because they’re
going to blow us up, right.”

Mrs. Oakley: There’s a lot of philosophies about that. (Students laughing at
Skye’s comment). . .Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Mandela,
who are all on the back board there. (points back to the large
whiteboard in the back of the room) Look at the middle one,
(reading a quote) “Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred
rather than love.” *
Cadence: Exactly.
During the twenty minutes that they engaged with this unofficial text and the issues that
arose as a result of it, they discussed important current social and political issues related
to topics that were important to them and their families. The teacher and students were
evidently moved by the cartoon and by what they had been watching and hearing in the
media about the women and men in Iraq (Marcus was especially passionate about the
importance of supporting the soldiers who were involved in the war, especially since his
cousins were enlisting after they graduate from high school). The class was also moved
by the questions and conversations raised in the discussion (e.g., what is meant by
freedom? what is the role of government in “defending” freedom? when is war justified?
what is the role of texts like the cartoon in raising important issues?) It was this reason
that Mrs. Oakley, while recognizing the need to continue reading Romeo & Juliet,
allowed the students to continue the dialogue. In instances like this one above, unofficial

texts (e.g., the comic that started the discussion, the posters on the wall) became sites of

entry into important discussion topics.

72

Film Texts

The formal use of film texts in the class occurred very little over the course of the
year. They watched one movie as an expansion upon another formally assigned text (i.e.,
the movie Philadelphia in connection with At Risk, the novel about the young girl with
AIDS), and watched three other movies while they were reading or after they had read
the corresponding novels or plays (e.g., To Kill a Mockingbirdfilm while reading the
novel). While watching the plays or films, Mrs. Oakley engaged the students in
conversations about the ways in which the films and the printed texts differed. These
discussions often took the form of focusing on things that the film left out from the play
or novel. However, on a few occasions, Mrs. Oakley and the students focused on the
textual differences between the two mediums.

While film texts had a relatively minor role in the formal curriculum, films were
prevalent during class discussions throughout the entire year. During just about every
class meeting, a film text was referenced, quoted, and/or entered a conversation. Mrs.
Oakley often included the description of scenes from a film to illustrate a theme or point
she was making. She also welcomed film texts as important resources for students to
contribute when discussing any other text or idea (as discussed in a later section, Students
Offering Personal Texts). Film texts, though often not included as part of the formal
curriculum and official texts, were centrally positioned as a form of resource for students

to make sense of the formal curriculum.

Newsprint

On several occasions during the year, Mrs. Oakley brought to the students’

attention the school and local newspapers. Talking about the recent national news on the

73

IIIAIL'III .I

..-‘

 

front page of the newspaper, Mrs. Oakley said, “Sometimes even if you only read one
page of the paper you can get a lot of information.” In one instance, she provided a
window into the formal class time to discuss the then recent Tsunami disaster, and its
effects on the children, especially in regards to the story in the paper about child
trafficking. She conveyed to the class that they “might want to read the whole article,” in
order to learn more about the issues stemming from the Tsunami disaster. After a
discussion of topics that start with the Tsunami disaster and end with the story of Prince
Harry dressing up as a Nazi at a party and the implications of this (as well as mentioning
the Nazi’s bombing of England during WWII), she tells the class, “If you read this one
page, you learn so much. And this is basically true everyday with the paper.” (1/13/05)
Often during the year, Mrs. Oakley dedicated some time in class to discussing the events
and issues in the newspaper, and to reinforce the idea that these texts are available for

them to read and learn about current issues in the news.

Multimodal (and Multicultural) Experiences

Opening up the possibility for students to engage with a variety of people and
texts that were not part of the formal curriculum, Mrs. Oakley would often have “extra
credit” opportunities for students to participate in and reflect upon. In most cases these
involved some form of multicultural theme (e.g., celebration of Martin Luther King Jr., a
film and discussion of Sudanese refugees). Mrs. Oakley required the students to attend
the event, collect the ticket or brochure for proof of them going, and write a reflection on
the event. Anywhere from about two to a third of the class participated in these extra-

credit events.

74

These events differed to the other events that were part of the official curriculum.
These events were in the community and involved non-school affiliated organizations
and groups, necessitating students to have the support and participation of family and
friends for transportation. In addition, participation in these events often required
engagement with a variety of texts usually integrated as part of the event. Brochures,
songs, films, lectures, discussions, artwork were all part of these extra-credit events. The
Martin Luther King Jr. event was titled “Jazz: Spirituals, Prayer, and Protest”. It included
an eclectic collection of music performed by a wind symphony and a jazz band, and
included several selections of Dr. King’s speeches. While students went to this event,
wrote about it, and received extra credit for it, the event was not discussed in class. The
space in which it was given remained outside the formal assessments and class
discussions. In addition, the possible focus of the events could have included the
multimodal nature of these texts and the way in which certain forms of media interacted
with other forms, like many suggest for English language arts classes in new times
(Kress, 2000b). However, Mrs. Oakley did provide opportunities for these texts to have
space in her classroom, furthering the expansion of boundaries of official fictional
literary texts.

A result of this expansion of the texts of the classroom was that Mrs. Oakley’s 9th
grade class was unable to read Romeo & Juliet in its entirety, and was unable to read the
textbook abridged version of The Odyssey. While including class time to read, write, and
discuss poetry, to analyze cartoons, to Show films, to let conversations go away from
focused areas of study, to allow students to read each others’ work, Mrs. Oakley had less

time to fully study the standard texts like Romeo and Juliet and The Odyssey. The most

75

significant example of the expansion of the curriculum was that two of the official texts
were not included in the school year. While this was not her intention (disregarding
required texts), it is the result of the processes of expansion and maintenance elaborated

in this chapter, which is the negotiation of both the teacher, as well as the students.

Expanding Texts: Negotiating Curricular Decisions

Mrs. Oakley’s also allows the students voice in the text selection process for the
next school year, revealing that what becomes official in the classroom is partly the result
of the students’ experiences. For the alternative books that the students read over the
week prior with a buddy, Mrs. Oakley explains that she wants to get some feedback from
them about the books they read, “to see which books should stay, and should I offer these
books again to kids or not.” The students took this opportunity to rate the books on a
scale of 1 to 10, and provided an explanation as to why it would be important (or not) for
students in future classes. The students quickly became active reviewers of their books,
mentioning whether their book was “difficult to get into”, if they “had a friend who they
could relate it to,” or if they “thought it was a good way to learn about things that were
happening at that time.” Allowing the students a voice in the text selection process for
future classes was a reflection of the amount of student feedback she asked for
throughout the year in many different aspects of the class. Later in the year, based on
several students mentioning how depressing much of the curriculum is that they have had
in their English classes the last few years (especially the 2 month long Holocaust unit),
Mrs. Oakley told the class that a humorous book, Firoozeh Dumas’ Funny in Farsi: A
Memoir of Growing Up Iranian in America, was being piloted in a different English class

and they were going to see if they could fit it in to the curriculum for the year. They were

76

_ unable to include Dumas’ text into the curriculum, however this discussion again makes
apparent the coherence Mrs. Oakley had with the class about the selection of texts for the
English classroom, as well as the many influences playing a part in the enacted
curriculum. I will now turn to the students’ role in the maintenance and expansion of the

texts of the classroom.

Students’ Personal Literacy Texts: Texts as Resources for Meaning Making and

Expanding Boundaries of what Counts as Texts

While Mrs. Oakley was active in expanding classroom texts, the students were
also keenly aware of opportunities where they could incorporate their textual resources in
classroom literacy events. In Mrs. Oakley’s classroom there were few texts that were out
of bounds for students to integrate into classroom events. There were texts that received
more privilege in classroom, however, and this was negotiated throughout the semester,
as part of a process of maintaining and expanding the boundaries of appropriate literacy
texts for which to include and study in 9th grade English.

As the year progressed students learned that they could take advantage of this
broad range of available texts and were largely responsible for the textual diversity in the
classroom. In any class period, students would include their own digital (video games,
websites), musical (Hip hop, jazz), and television and film texts (independent films,
popular films, television series) as sources of meaningful connection or for expansion of

classroom texts.

77

Resources as a Scafl’old: The case of popular movies and television shows

While discussing the names that Harper Lee chose for her two protagonist
characters in To Kill a Mockingbird, Scout and Jem, Mrs. Oakley says the names
are androgynous, and asks, “Do you know what androgynous means?”

Larissa: That means something that goes both ways.

Mrs. Oakley: Yah, it can have characteristics of both, male and female, or not

specifically male or specifically female.

Larissa: Like Pat, on S-N-L [Saturday Night Live]

Mrs. Oakley: Yes, okay, (laughing) how many of you have seen that, those skits

with Pat, they are trying to desperately find out she/he is a boy or a
girl, and every time they do something backfires, veg funny
scenes.

Mrs. Oakley asks the students who has never seen the Saturday Night Live clips

with Pat that they are referring to. Many of the students raise their hands. After

Larissa mentions that they can watch the DVD of the videos, Mrs. Oakley says

that they should bring it in to watch it because its “worth watching, and a great

parody too.” Mrs. Oakley then makes the point that Harper Lee had a reason for

naming the character the way that she did.

It was evident from being in the classroom for any short amount of time that the
students had a wealth of film and television knowledge that they could draw from during
any of the class discussions. Often these texts were used to illustrate a concept, character,
or theme that they were discussing in relation to one of the official texts of the classroom.
Other times, film and television texts were offered when defining words (like
androgynous), and when discussing current issues that arose from these texts (e.g., the

use of protective gloves in medicine in connection to current issues in AIDS when

reading At-Risk).

78

Since Mrs. Oakley wove these film and television texts throughout classroom
activity, it was normal for students to do the same. Drawing from these film and
television texts became a valued way of participating in the classroom. Instances like the
discussion of Pat from Saturday Night Live were common ways that the teacher and
students expanded the boundaries of potential resources for making meaning of official
texts (Fairclough, 2000). These film and television texts were mostly utilized as a
scaffold for understanding, appreciating, and making sense of the formal, official texts of
the classroom. However, at times, the boundaries of what counted as valued texts and
practices were expanded and these texts were included as something to be studied as a
text themselves. In the “Pat” discussion above, although the possibility of bringing in the
DVD of the scenes from the television program to study as text was mentioned, neither
the teacher nor the students followed through with bringing in and incorporating the film

clips as part of the texts of the classroom.

Expanding Notions of Appropriate Texts: The case of The Onion

When students offered their own literacy texts, and Mrs. Oakley welcomed this
interaction and their resources, the classroom transformed into a place of student
participation and textual diversity. Students’ outside texts and literacy practices become
sites of resource and the classroom becomes one of sharing textual experiences and
resources. During one of Mrs. Oakley’s discussions centered on reading the newspaper
(this time the school’s newspaper), Marcus and Anthony claim classroom space and
expand the discussion.

Before going on to the activities of the day, Mrs. Oakley wanted the class to focus

on a couple of things in the school’s newspaper.

79

LL“.-

I. I in. b .I. etht

.. r.

 

Mrs. Oakley:

Marcus:

Mrs. Oakley:

I would like to call your attention to two things in this paper before
we go on. (she holds up the current version of the school’s
newspaper)

(interrupting) There is one really good article about [friend’s
name].

I don’t know [Marcus’ friend].

Mrs. Oakley discusses an insert of the paper that they might want to keep for the

future, as it has a list of the events of the last year. She also mentions that they

misquoted her in a story.

Mrs. Oakley:
Anthony:

Student:
Mrs. Oakley:

Anthony:

How many of you like to get the newspaper, and actually spend
some time with it, read it? (about half the class raise their hands)
(turning to the class) Does anyone read the back page?

Yah

Yah, this short stories thing is very funny, and they kind of
springboard off of each other, and it is done in a very non-
traditional way, would you say Anthony?

Yah

Mrs. Oakley describes to the class the point-counterpoint feature of the opinion

section of the paper, and tells them that it is similar to how it is done on 60

Minutes.

Mrs. Oakley:

They pick an issue, and I don’t know how really they pick the
issue, and they pick an issue and do a pro and a con, point and
counterpoint. So they are always very interesting to read, and they
have very, very different opinions and different references and
people they are talking to and interviewing to support their
particular ideas.

Mrs. Oakley begins talking about the newspaper, a text that is not part of the

formal curriculum and often seen as the students’ voice on the high school campus.
Students are often flipping through the paper the day that it comes out, looking for the
many stories about students (as Marcus points at), major news stories, and controversial

issues. This begins as a quick discussion of a couple points from the newspaper, and

80

soon turns into a discussion of different sections of the paper. Mrs. Oakley has spoken

during much of the discussion to this point, as it was supposed to be a quick deviation

from the plan for the day. The discussion soon becomes a space for students to engage

with their own texts and practices, and expand the texts of the classroom.

Building off of the point/counterpoint discussion, Anthony turns to the class and

asks: “Anyone read The Onion in here?”

Mrs. Oakley:
Anthony:
Marcus:
Mrs. Oakley:
Anthony:

Mrs. Oakley:
Anthony:
Marcus:
Anthony:

Mrs. Oakley:

Anthony:

The onion? Is that the cartoon?

The fake newspaper.

My aunt was talking about that.

What is The Onion, I don’t know what it is?

It is like a fake newspaper with all kinds of ridiculous articles with
actual pictures and stuff. It’s kind of like the World Weekly News
and The National Enquirer, but it’s more intelligent and not
ridiculous humor, like they put out a parody of our terrorist colors,
but the lowest one was like the lowest chance of seeing your
children blown away in front of you, or something. (Mrs. Oakley
and some students laugh) And the highest one is like, paradise is
coming, or whatever.

Where do you get this, is this a printed thing, or on-line?

Yah, you can get it in Chicago, that’s where //I got it.//

//They have// it in San Diego.

They have it all over the place. I’m trying to get the local 7/11 to
start it but you know, it started in Madison, Wisconsin, but the
point and counterpoint just reminded me of . . .the point was like
Sudan: a developing nation with a lot many new cultures. And the
counterpoint was get me out of this Hell-hole or something like
that. Just //totally ridiculous/I

//It sounds like// those of you who like watching The Daily Show
would like that paper, right.

Yah.

Mrs. Oakley asks the class if they know about the yearly paper that a group writes

once a year and distributes at traffic lights.

Mrs. Oakley:

It is sort of like that, a parody, satires on a lot of stuff, taking
situations and turning them into funny things, and it’s meant to be
a very funny paper, not necessarily a biting sarcastic, funny paper.
But it sounds like The Onion because of the biting edge. Who
have you contacted to see if we could get that here?

81

Anthony:
Mrs. Oakley:

Anthony:
Mrs. Oakley:

Oh, just a couple of the guys at the [local store chain], the
manager’s daughter works there. You can go to theonion.com.
They do an on-line version of it? onion.com (announcing to the
class)

(correcting Mrs. Oakley) No, th_eonion.com

No, th_eonion.com, thgonioncom.

At the center of this discussion are Anthony’s questions to the class about The

Onion, and his willingness to connect The Onion to the point/counterpoint. While

starting with the school’s newspaper, a wide range of texts are included as part of the

discussion: The Onion, 60 Minutes, The Daily Show, The World Weekly News and The

National Enquirer, and the local newspaper created and distributed once a year. Anthony

contributes The Onion as a text that might be meaningful if you like parody, and by the

end of the discussion, Mrs. Oakley had made the suggestion that others might enjoy

reading it. At the end of The Onion discussion, Marcus asks for Mrs. Oakley and the

class to consider his friend’s wrestling story in the paper.

Mrs. Oakley:
Marcus:

Mrs. Oakley:

Any other comments about the newspaper, today?

(raising his hand and following up what he mentioned at the
beginning of the discussion) Ah, that section on [friend], that I was
going to say.

I didn’t read that, what is that about?

Students and Mrs. Oakley talk about the boy, trying to figure out who he is.

Marcus:

Mrs. Oakley:
Anthony:
Marcus:
Mrs. Oakley:

He has the record for 96 wins and he also is going for the record of
49 pins.

Very neat.

How many pins?

49

Well, there’s always 2 pages of sports, and they obviously feature
some accomplished athletes, or athletes that are trying to achieve
some goals. So, the paper is really pretty interesting to read from
front cover to back cover. I just haven’t had time to read the whole
thing yet.

82

Marcus pushes to include his friend’s story to the discussion, claiming classroom
space for the sports section of the paper, a section of the paper that Mrs. Oakley had not
read and would not likely be something that she would comment on during class, and did
not follow up when first asked. Mrs. Oakley recognized Marcus’ persistence and allowed
him to include this section as part of the discussion of the paper. Often throughout the
year, the teacher and students would contribute texts that were often outside of the formal
curriculum, at times utilized as meaningful resources, and at other times making their
way into the curricular space of the classroom, expanding what counts as text in the

classroom.

Expanding Valued Practices: The case of online dictionaries

On a few occasions, the students’ experiences with technology entered into the
classroom discussion and succeeded in transforming the valued texts and practices of the
classroom. During one particular instance, Marcus utilized his resources as an
opportunity to Show resistance with the practices associated with the valued texts of the
classroom. The following interaction occurred shortly after Marcus offered
dictionary.com as an on-line resource.

Cadence informs Mrs. Oakley that she does not have her packet that has the list of

words and definitions that they were supposed to study from for the vocabulary

exam. This mean she will need to look up each of the words on the list.

Cadence: I kind of um, threw away my packet.

Mrs. Oakley: Okay, dictionary.com, or a real—you know, have you guys ever
seen the old fashioned real dictionaries.

Student: Yah.

Anthony: The @ dictionaries?

Mrs. Oakley: (grabs her dictionary off of her desk) They look like something
like this.

83

Mrs. Oakley: How many of you of you have a really good dictionary at home,
like this? (raising the dictionary up in the air)
About 1/4 of the class raises their hands.

Marcus: I have a question. //I have a question//.
Mrs. Oakley: ”How many of you// use dictionaries online more now a—days?
Marcus: There is no need for that. Why would you ever need that?

(speaking quickly and with a bit of frustration) You have a
computer that can go online.

Anthony: When you are playing scrabble and you don’t want to run to your
computer all the time.
Marcus: It’s way //faster than trying to figure it out//

Mrs. Oakley: //W ell, this one// well it depends on what I haven’t used
dictionary.com, but this one gives you word origins, there’s several

definitions-—
Several students begin talking loudly about online dictionaries.
Marcus: You can get that online, everything.

Mrs. Oakley: I just keep this next to my desk and it’s kind of funny because a lot
of times if I’m reading something, like if I come across a word in a
book I’m reading and I don’t know it, I write it at the bottom.
Like this word (pointing to the bottom of a book she is reading for
another class), I didn’t know this word, ‘raillery.’ I had no idea
what ‘raillery’ means. This books was written in the late 1800s, so
there are some words in here that are kind of archaic, and when I
sit and read I sit with a dictionary next to me, and look up the
words, or I’ll read like 20 pages and then go back //and check the
words I don’t know.//

Marcus: //But, how long is it going// to take you to look a word up like that?

Mrs. Oakley: Well, you gotta open it and find and stuff, but I’m sure it would be,
and I don’t even think about doing it. I’m less thinking of
technology.

Mrs. Oakley: But if I read my 20 pages and sat at the computer and looked up
my 5 words I didn’t know (students talking), well I will have to try
that, because really I’m sure it is a lot faster.

Mrs. Oakley: It’s nice that you are offering it as a suggestion, cause I hadn’t
thought about doing it.

Marcus: I always go online, because I don’t have a dictionary at my house.
I have a little one but it doesn’t have the words and that kind of
thing.

Marcus, the students, and the teacher negotiate the privileged texts and practices of the

classroom. In the moment that Mrs. Oakley acknowledges the point of tension between

84

traditional dictionaries and online dictionaries, Marcus and the students draw from their
resources, being tech-savvy teenagers, and seek to transform the privileged forms of texts
and practices that were evident in the teacher’s talk (“Real dictionaries?”). The students
push their texts and contexts into the activity of the classroom, while also seemingly
making an impact on the way the teacher might use dictionaries as a result. Even if the
teacher or Cadence end up not becoming users of online dictionaries, Marcus and the
students participated in transforming the practices of the classroom, as well as the

privileged status of particular texts (online dictionaries) and practices.

Summary

A select group of traditional fictional texts have remained fairly standard in
English classes in most schools across the country, even despite rapid changes in
technology and the growing diversity of the classrooms. The inclusion of film, music,
visual texts, and multicultural literature are often non-existent or receive little valued
space in the English classroom and formal curriculum (C. Luke, 2000). We see in the
case of this 9th grade English class, the way in which texts remain official texts, and how
other less official texts may gain space in the confines of the English classroom and
curriculum.

Through the assignment and study of required texts, the beliefs and values
associated with official texts, and the personal texts that the teacher and students
integrated into the curriculum, the students and teacher negotiated the texts that were
selected and valued for classroom learning. This process of negotiation involved both the
maintaining and expanding of the official texts of the curriculum. The study of

traditionally canonical texts were integral to studying English, although Mrs. Oakley

85

created space for students to engage in texts that were normally unsanctioned in the
English classroom. The expansion of texts involved newsprint, contemporary poetry, and
graphic and multimodal texts. While this expansion occurred, pressures to maintain the
official texts remained vital to the activity of the class, as Mrs. Oakley believed it to be
important for students to have the “touchstones” for future classes and contexts. The
teacher and students also reinforced notions about a textual hierarchy that further
established official texts as privileged over the personal and non-traditional English texts,
such as newsprint, and visual and multimodal texts.

When Mrs. Oakley offers Barnes & NobleTM as a possible store for students to
receive the gift certificate in the interaction to begin the chapter, we see a specific
moment where together the teacher and students negotiate what it means to be an English
teacher and an appropriate text for English students. When examining the practices of
the classroom throughout the year, we see the processes and practices in place that are

involved in the expansion and maintenance of the texts of the classroom.

86

CHAPTER 4: READING AS “9TH GRADERS”: NEGOTIATING BOUNDARIES

AND IDENTITIES

Important for studying English was learning what it meant to read as a 9‘“ grader.
Learning to be a reader involved becoming familiar with the literacy practices valued in
the classroom. In this chapter, I examine the ways in which the boundaries were
constructed of what it meant to be a reader and what counted as reading. Through the
examination of two literacy practices, I will introduce what it meant to “read” as a 9th
grader and how this was expanded and maintained in the classroom. Additionally, I will
discuss one students’ sophisticated literacy practices and how he actively positioned
himself in opposition to the reading practices of the classroom, further maintaining the

privileged notions of the reader.

Teacher-Led Shared Reading and Literature Discussions

Sitting at the front of the room with a book in her hand, Mrs. Oakley read with an
animated voice, often incorporating various accents for appropriate characters. Students
sat at their desks, in a horseshoe shape, listening and following along with their own
copies of the text, turning the page when she reached the end. Students became familiar
with this practice and understood that it was appropriate to stop Mrs. Oakley to ask
questions or make comments. More often though, Mrs. Oakley stopped her reading to
highlight a particular piece of “beautiful description,” connection to another text, or an
important analytic tool for understanding a character’s development in the novel. At
times, what started as a discussion of a character usually digressed into extended class

discussions of gripping topics and thoughtful arguments.

87

Through the teacher-led shared reading practice, Mrs. Oakley and the students
shaped the constructions of what it meant to read in the classroom. There were three
patterns important for understanding how the teacher-led shared reading practice shaped
the construction of what it meant to read as a 9th grader. The first pattern important to
this practice was that reading involved literary analysis, which involved more than just
decoding and comprehending the text. Early in the year, Mrs. Oakley made explicit to
the students that 9th grade English was an introduction to literary analysis. In describing
the reasoning for her having the students complete an assignment, she tells the class:

Keep in mind that in 9th grade English, one of the big things that English teachers

have to do is a lot of literary analysis. It’s a big introduction. You have done some

of that in middle school, but it is much more full-blown when you get to high
school, looking at characters and themes, and why people do what they do, and
looking at images and motifs. . .and things that authors write about and care about,
and how you respond to those as readers. That’s all literary analysis.
Being an English student in Mrs. Oakley’s classroom meant becoming familiar with and
engaging in literary analysis. Mrs. Oakley used the teacher-led shared reading practice as
an opportunity to model the ways of interpreting and the types of interactions with texts
that she valued in the classroom, as illustrated in the following series of interactions taken
from a teacher-led shared reading event.
Mrs. Oakley is reading Alice Hoffman’s novel, At Risk, about a family dealing
with their daughter’s battle with AIDS in the 19805, when they encountered a

moment when the daughter was having nighttime dreams of gymnastic moves that

88

she was now unable to do because of the disease. At this moment, Mrs. Oakley

asks the class,

What other story do you remember that a character was dreaming,
and the character in real life really couldn’t walk very well, and in
the dreams, he would fly?

James answers correctly, recalling a character from a short story they read

together earlier in the year. Mrs. Oakley then discusses how dreams of this nature

are common for people who might not have full use of their limbs or other body
parts. She foreshadows future dreams that will be discussed in this section of the
book.

Mrs. Oakley: In this section of the book too, there is another dream that is
mentioned, so the author is taking you through characters’ dreams.
Why do you think an author would focus on a character’s
nighttime dreams?

Marcus: Maybe to have the reader become more in touch with the

. characters.

Mrs. Oakley: Yah, okay cause a lot of time the stuff that we dream about is just
right beneath the conscious level. It might not be stuff we
regularly share with everybody, might not even be stuff that we
share with ourselves, but comes out in our dreams, and sometimes
it’s things we’re worried about or things that we are trying to fix or
solve. .

The teacher-led shared reading practice was a powerful way for Mrs. Oakley to
demonstrate the types of thinking and analysis that were important for participating in
class. During teacher-led shared reading events, Mrs. Oakley would often point to
literary analytical devices that were common in the English discipline for understanding

and interpreting texts. This example illustrates the way that the reader must dig below

the surface when reading texts. Over the course of the year, students learned to view

89

reading as a process of making interpretations of character’s personalities, beliefs, and
motivations through inferences based on the details of the text.

In the interaction above, Mrs. Oakley emphasized using dreams as a way of
analyzing a character’s internal motivations and psyche. A little later in the interaction,
she prompted the students for future instances where dreams may be interpreted to
analyze a character. Later in the discussion she reminds them to:

Think about dreams a little bit and especially when authors put them in literature

and they do it for a reason. They are trying to show you something or reveal

something about the character.

But first, students’ curiosity about dreams leads to a discussion about the role of
dreams in their lives and in other cultures.

Mrs. Oakley: Native American culture places a great emphasis on the value of
dreams and the meaning, and if you study Eastern culture too, any
of the Eastern Hemisphere countries, a lot of the Asian
countries. . .put a huge value on dreams. It’s not like you get up
and say ‘oh, I had the stupid dream’ and everyone laughs at you.
You might say your dream and your whole family might sit around
and talk about what do you think that means. And how can you
incorporate that into your life. Or what’s that dream trying to tell
you. Something that maybe you need to do.

Mrs. Oakley sees several students smiling and looking at her with questioning

faces. She then discusses the different ways that cultures value dreams.

Mrs. Oakley: And you’re looking at me like crazy, crazy wacko, but our culture
doesn’t place a lot of value on dreams, but many other cultures do.
Have any of you ever kept a dream journal, just kept a notebook
next to your bed to write down your dreams when you wake up?
[Rachel raises her hand] When you kept the dream journal, did you
find that you had more dreams than usual? Or about the same?

Mrs. Oakley says that many people use the dream journal to see what is coming

out in their dreams.

90

Cadence: I kind of just had a good dream and I decided to write it down.
Mrs. Oakley: It is very cool to go back and read what you’re dreaming about too.

Marcus says that he does not remember his dreams very well. Several of the
students talk about dreams they have had, if they remember their dreams, and how
they think it happens.

Anthony: I heard that dreams take all the memories and stuff from the day
and mix them together.

Building from Anthony’s comment, Mrs. Oakley describes a surrealistic film

where the director “juxtaposes” a variety of images with one another.

Mrs. Oakley: There’s all kinds of things that come out in your dreams that is
kind of everything coming together in a weird sort of way, but
sometimes it is very symbolic.

Making sense of texts in Mrs. Oakley’s class involved making connections with outside
texts, as well as between texts. Mrs. Oakley often made connections to other texts (e.g., .
video, music, and literature) during this shared reading practice. The first question in the
above interaction was intended for the class to make intertextual links between texts they
have read, each pertaining to a character’s dreams. These intertextual links occurred
frequently during these teacher—led shared reading events. At times, the texts were not
texts they had read together for the class, but other texts that allowed the teacher or
student to make sense of the current text or theme (e.g., the surrealistic film, reading
journals). These intertextual links revealed the multiple worlds of texts that could be
analyzed (surrealism in a mOVie) or may be utilized as resources for interpretation (e.g.,

books for interpreting dreams, symbols for interpreting people’s actions and motivations).

These messages about what it meant to study English (e.g., digging below the surface,

91

text-to—self connections, intertextual connections) were prevalent throughout the teacher-
led shared reading practice.

Not only did Mrs. Oakley raise the significance of analyzing dreams as a literary
technique, in the above interaction, but she also demonstrated the importance of making
text-to-self connections, the second pattern important to this practice. Mrs. Oakley
encouraged the class to explore the role dreams play in their own lives. Cadence
mentioned the dream journal that she used at times to record her dreams, focusing on how
the text influenced whether or not she remembered her dreams. Anthony offered what he
had heard about dreams (i.e., dreams being just a mixture of your experiences with no
real meaning), which was an alternative interpretation on the meaning of dreams being
offered in the class.

Throughout the teacher-led shared reading practices, Mrs. Oakley would often try
to help the students make connections with the text by engaging the class in questions
that prompted them to make personal connections to the texts. Questions like, “How
many of you remember your parents taking you on your first day of school” in referring
to Atticus (in To Kill A Mockingbird) not taking the children to school, were common
during the teacher-led shared reading practice. They discussed the importance of the first
day of school in their lives, and then why Atticus might not bring his child to school on
the first day, and what this might say about Atticus as a father. Mrs. Oakley engaged the
students in this elaboration in ways that she intended to make the text interesting and
personally meaningful for them.

The third pattern was that the teacher and students connected topics in the book to

current issues in the news (e.g., Catholic Priest’s child molestation cases, the growing

92

presence of surveillance cameras in schools). As topics were read in the text, Mrs.
Oakley or the students would use them as a “springboard” to current events. When
reading Bean Trees early in the year, Mrs. Oakley came to a section in the book when it
discussed how holy places were supposed to be sanctuaries for people to seek safety.
Mrs. Oakley mentioned to the class that this was important now in the war in Iraq.
Marcus raises his hand, and mentions how an American solder killed an unarmed and
wounded Iraqi person in a Mosque. Mrs. Oakley and students discuss how this current
situation might be different than the one in the novel, as the insurgents in Iraq were
fighting from the place of worship. Throughout the year, reading in the teacher-led
shared reading practice was constructed as an activity that involved interactive

discussions of current issues and personally meaningful explorations.

The “Reading Assignment”: Reading of School Texts Outside of Class

Early in the school year, students quickly realized that an important practice for
learning to be an English student and a “9th grade” reader was the “completion” of their
reading assignments, which consisted of individually reading a specified number of pages
or chapters of the class text as homework.

On one occasion early in November, a little over two months into the school year,
Mrs. Oakley assigned the students to read a chapter and a half (pages 109-145)-of the text
they were reading (Bean Trees) for the next day. After giving them the last fifteen
minutes of the class period to read silently, She mentioned that they would have a reading
quiz the next day to make sure they had read. Several students made public their disgust
with this assignment. Some students expressed the many other things they had to do in

their busy lives (e.g., basketball games, homework for other classes) and other students

93

voiced their general discontent by letting out a sigh of disgust. Marcus announced,
“That’s not going to happen. . .it Will take me two hours to do that.” After hearing a bit of
the discussion, Mrs. Oakley let the class know that this much reading is “not that much to
ask for with freshman.” During this event early in the year, Mrs. Oakley made explicit
the expectations of reading assignments and the amount of work they were to be expected
to do during this school year, as well as in the future. Likewise, the students made
explicit their resistance to this literacy practice; in addition, they made aware their
struggle to negotiate their role as “9‘h grade” readers with other areas of their lives, in and
out of school.

Unlike in the teacher-led shared reading and literature discussions, where
comprehension and retaining details were a necessary but not sole purpose of the
practice, the primary emphasis with reading assignments were students’ ability to elicit
information and illustrate their “completion” of the reading. Quizzes that evaluated if
students “completed” their reading were important events that contributed to constructing
the purpose of reading in this particular practice as primarily recalling details from the
text. Mrs. Oakley started the class off with a quiz three to four times during the reading
of a novel. Most quizzes were in the form of fill-in-the-blank or multiple choice, which
directed the students to elicit information and details about characters and events from the
novel (e. g., Who lectures Scout on not using swear words? In this section of the book,
who do we discover has died?) Mrs. Oakley’s said that her intent was to make sure the
students read and knew the details of the novel. Other quizzes prompted students to
make generalizations and analyses (Nystrand et al., 1997) across characters and themes.

For example, for one essay question, Mrs. Oakley asks the students to:

94

Discuss Atticus’ way of operating in the courtroom thus far in the novel. How

does he act in the courtroom? Give examples from the testimony scenes thus far.

What do his actions reveal about his personality/character?

These questions pushed the students to draw from a variety of parts of the chapter to
make conclusions about a character’s personality, or a particular theme or symbol in the
novel. The reading quizzes contributed to the construction of reading in this literacy
practice (e. g., reading and understanding the details of the texts in order to elicit
information, drawing from various parts of a chapter to make generalizations about a
character or theme).

The construction of reading as recalling details and generalizing about characters
and themes became further emphasized in the explicit focus on comprehension and self-
regulation strategies during the first few months of the year. When some of the students
expressed that they were having difficulty with the quizzes and finishing the entire
reading assignment, Mrs. Oakley engaged the students in a brainstorming activity where
they created a list of 38 strategies for “succeeding on literature quizzes,” (see Figure 6).
The question posed to the students was: “What are strategies for succeeding on literature
quizzes?” (In the following class periods Mrs. Oakley referred to the list as strategies for
becoming active readers.) The students contributed many different kinds of strategies,
most having to do with comprehension and self-regulation strategies, which worked (or
they thought would work) for them. While some of the strategies are intended to be
humorous (e.g., write hints on hand, take book home, read to dog), the list illustrates
patterns that reflect a particular view of reading, one that further Stresses the importance

of comprehending and eliciting details from the text. In the list of strategies, a main goal

95

was to more effectively comprehend the passages (e.g., reread passage for
comprehension), be able to recall more details, and ultimately, do better on the quizzes
(e. g., think of quiz and doing well to motivate you).

There were two additional patterns from the list of 38 strategies that were also
reflective of other interactions and events associated with the construction of reading in
the classroom. The first pattern is that the act of reading is a solitary undertaking that is
to be done where it is quiet, where they will not be disturbed, and where there are no
distractions (e.g., get away from television and computer, lock yourself in your room).
For the most part, reading class texts outside of the classroom was meant to be a solitary
practice, where one might cuddle up with the book and spend hours reading. They were
not asked to share what they read, or asked to explore how what they read may connect
with current social, political, or personal issues. When the students came to class after
their reading assignment, they did not share with the class the possible implications of
what they had read on their understanding of the characters or the themes they had been
discussing. When coming to class, the students would either demonstrate what they
remembered from the reading with a quiz or test, or present their ideas in an essay or
assignment that would be turned into the teacher. Reading as constructed in this practice
was an act that was an individual and private experience between the person and the text,
rarely ever becoming the social event resembling the teacher-led shared reading and

literature discussions ever were.

96

Figure 6. How to Succeed on Literature Quizzes

 

 

Get up earlier and read, especially on weekend
Read it aloud—loudly—to the wall, brother, dog, etc.
Drink coffee
Force yourself to read
Listen to it on tape
Think of .quiz and doing well to motivate you!
Think of happy parents when you get good grades
Think of how good it feels to get homework done
Write assignment in planner
Write assignment (clue words) on hand
Take book home
Carry novel with you everywhere
Read whole book up front and review chapters as assigned
Read each passage two times
Focus On reading
Work in a quieter atmosphere
Get away from television
Get away from people
Tell family you are concentrating
Try to clear mind of other stuff
Lock yourself in your room
Get away from computers
Don’t lay down to read
Sit in a not so comfortable chair
Turn off your cell phone
Get cuddly and comfortable—works for some
Quiz yourself each chapter—what happened?
Reread passages for comprehension
Picture what’s going on—like a movie
Get really involved with one character
Take breaks for snacks and bathroom
Reward yourself after reading
Use intemet for support services
Get as many of your senses involved as you can
Sight
Hearing
Touch
Taste/Smell imagery

 

97

 

A second pattern reflected in this list of strategies is that reading was a chore, an
assigned responsibility that one must struggle through, and when finished one may be
rewarded (e. g., force yourself to read, think about the feeling of getting homework done).
For many of the texts they read, students would see overnight reading assignments as
bothersome and tiresome. After asking Mrs. Oakley if they were going to have a reading
assignment, students would often cheer if there were no assignment and verbally whine
and complain if there were one. This discontentment for assignments usually did not
change depending on the text offered. In my interviews with students towards the end of
the year, the students generally told me that they liked each of the literary texts they read
(e. g., with the exception of The Old Man and the Seal), although this did not seem the
case when they were required to have reading assignments. Undoubtedly, much of this
animosity for their reading assignments was a result of it being school work they were
required to do during their busy lives, and not exclusively related to the act of reading
alone, as students did also at times make similar complaints about other assignments that
involved a great deal of time. However, it is important to highlight that reading
assignments, unlike the teacher-led shared reading and literature discussions, were often

seen as a tiresome undertaking that were a chore to finish.

Expanding and Maintaining the Boundaries of Reading

Through these two common literacy practices (i.e., teacher—led shared reading,
reading assignment) and the interactions around texts, reading was defined as
comprehending and remembering large amounts of literary texts, while being able to
draw from a variety of parts of a text to make an argument about a character or theme.

Literary analysis involves knowing what to look for in a text (e.g., dreams as ways of

98

looking at character development) and how to connect details from different parts of the
text into a response. Throughout the year, the students and teacher negotiated the
boundaries of these privileged ways of reading, at times resisting and expanding what it
meant to read. The teacher and students maintained and resisted/expanded these
practices, while also positioning themselves in particular ways within and through the

negotiated boundaries.

Resisting Reading as a Solitary Practice

On several occasions, when Mrs. Oakley wanted students to spend the remainder
of class silently reading their assignment, students would express their desire to continue
reading aloud in the teacher—led shared reading practice (e.g., Brianna: “I like it when you
read aloud”; Marcus: “‘You add character!”) In one particular instance during the Novel
Buddies assignment, a few students resisted the assigned reading practice. The “Novel '
Buddies” assignment was a weeklong activity where the students paired with each other
and choose a book from a collection of possible books to read. Each day they wrote a
letter to their “buddy” about the book, the characters involved, and any questions they
had. Since there were multiple texts being read in the class, students read silently during
the class period]. Brianna and five of the girls made their case to Mrs. Oakley for
transforming the Silent reading event into a shared reading practice, since all six of them
chose to read the same book with their buddy.

Brianna: I think it would also be cool if we could read out loud to our

partner. What do you think Mrs. Oakley?
Mrs. Oakley: I’m sorry what was that?

 

7 The class was split in half, due to the writing lab schedule (half of the class was
involved at the writing lab, the other half of the class in the classroom), allowing only
eight students in the classroom during this assignment.

99

Brianna: I think it would be cool to read out loud, that way we could both be
involved, and if we don’t understand something, we could ask our
partner.

Mrs. Oakley: That would be. (hesitating) I can’t really let you do it in the room
because it will be disturbing to others.

Brianna: Us girls could read together, because we all have the //same book//
Student: //same book//
Brianna: That’s why I was saying if they were—

Mrs. Oakley: But to read it out loud, you are never going to finish it in the time
that I want you to, because it takes a lot longer.

Cadence: We can read the rest at home.
Mrs. Oakley: IS that how you would rather do it?
Brianna: uh-huh!

Mrs. Oakley: Okay, and gentlemen, would that be disturbing to you, probably if

they are reading aloud?

Stephen: I don’t mind.

Joey: I don’t pay attention to them. I tune it out.

Mrs. Oakley: Okay, all right. That’s fine, take turns reading.

Mrs. Oakley had repeatedly told the six girls to stop talking and to read before
Brianna mentioned reading aloud. As soon as they were given the opportunity, they
began reading and read through to the end of the class period. Brianna started reading
aloud and the six of them took turns reading. When they did not understand something
that happened in the text, they asked the question to the group, and together discussed the
question in a similar way to how the class would discuss the text as a whole group.
These six students resisted the silent reading practice and changed the literacy event,
away from a solitary and individual event, to a Shared and interactive experience.

As a class, the students enjoyed reading aloud in the shared reading practice. At
one point in the year, interested in what students thought about shared and individual

reading, Mrs. Oakley heard from several students that they benefited from the shared

reading. Responding to Mrs. Oakley’s request for student opinions,

Marcus: I like whole class.
Mrs. Oakley Why?
Marcus: Because I like talking.

100

Mrs. Oakley: You miss out on the full class [discussion], and what the whole
class thinks when they are reading silently and with a partner.

Marcus: You don’t get—I don’t think it’s as interesting.
Mrs. Oakley So it is easier for you to get involved with it when you hear more
' people talking about it

As part of negotiating the classroom reading practices, students managed to
influence the construction of reading in the class. Through their resistance to the
independent reading and their encouragement for Mrs. Oakley to read as part of a larger

group, students were further shaping the practices in the classroom.

Expanding Discussion Topics: Texts as Springboards (Part 1)

While the main focus of the teacher-led shared reading practice involved reading,
comprehending, and analyzing literature, the topics that were discussed often deviated
from the actual text. As briefly mentioned earlier, this was an important difference
between the reading assignments and the teacher-led shared reading practices. “Reading”
literature became more than analyzing and recalling details from texts. The boundaries of
reading literature were often expanded to include utilizing literature as a springboard for
conversations about topics that were not directly related to the details or themes of the
literature text. These digressions allowed for the expansion of topics deemed appropriate
to discuss in the classroom and became central to the day-to-day practice of what it meant
to read in the classroom.

Mrs. Oakley encouraged these digressions (as seen in the Doonesbury comic
interaction in chapter three) by asking questions and moving to topics that she felt were
important but not directly related to the text they were reading. Negotiating these

digressions became central to the teacher-led shared reading practice, as both the teacher

101

and the students would sometimes ask the question, “How did we get to this?” Mrs.
Oakley wrestled with the idea of getting through the plan for the day, but also giving the
time for the students to discuss these topics. On several occasions Mrs. Oakley spent up
to ten minutes pursuing topics distantly related to the text, while also throughout the

discussion, telling the students that it was time to return to the novel.

Making Student Topics Central: The Case of Brianna.

While Mrs. Oakley often led the topic of focus away from the direct details and
themes of the text, the students would also actively pursue these topics by asking
questions or telling anecdotes that were indirectly related to the novel. Many of the
students would offer these digressions; however, Brianna was most active in using the
text as a springboard to important issues that related to current events and themes in their
lives. In one instance while reading To Kill A Mockingbird, Mrs. Oakley, who after
having been absent for two class periods, decided to have the students perform in what

’98

the class called a “discussion quiz . For the discussion quiz Mrs. Oakley asked the

students to talk about what they remembered about certain characters or certain events
that occurred in the previous few chapters, to make sure students have been “completing”
the reading, and to also discuss the parts of the text that they had yet to discuss as a class.
She asked students questions like, “Where did Jem and Scout sit in the courtroom, and

what is significant about this?” While in the middle of this teacher-directed event, after

talking about if Atticus had a choice in taking the court case to defend Tom Robinson,

 

8 This was the only “discussion quiz” I am aware they had during the year. When Mrs.
Oakley mentioned the quiz, it seemed that the students were aware of the practice,
although it was the only time she engaged the students in this practice during the year.

102

Brianna asks a question that leads into a ten minute discussion about moral and

philosophical rationales for the justice system.

Brianna: In the real world. . .do lawyers have to take sides in cases they
don’t believe in?

Mrs. Oakley: Yes, and //especially//

Brianna: //How// do they fight for something they don’t believe in?

Mrs. Oakley: When you go to law school you practice taking both sides. When
you have a client, your job is to give them the best defense possible
according to the law. Okay, because everybody—

Larissa: What if they killed someone and they told you what they did to the
person?

Mrs. Oakley: They still have to give you the best defense they possibly can.

Brianna: Isn’t that morally wrong though?

Student: No (said quickly and loudly)

Mrs. Oakley: Not according to the law.

Brianna: Wait, so if your client tells you that they did the crime, would //you
still have to say they didn’t do anything wrong. Isn’t that wrong?

Mrs. Oakley: Well, lots of times, you guys have seen enough lawyer shows,
when you see a client tell the lawyer that I did it, the lawyer kind
of hushes them up and says, ‘you really don’t want to tell me
that.’. . .lawyers will have a definite feeling that the guy is guilty,
okay but he deserves a defense, just like anybody does, everybody
deserves to be defended. . .even if people can’t afford a lawyer, the
state or the country will appoint a lawyer. . .there are several in [the
town].

Mrs. Oakley: According to our system, it is better to have a hundred guilty
people go free than one innocent person imprisoned, that’s what
our system is founded on. ’

Brianna: I don’t know about that.

Mrs. Oakley: If you think about putting yourself in a position where you’re

accused of a crime that you didn’t do, you would want all those
benefits, you would want somebody who is going to fight for you
to the death, and you would want them to believe in your
innocence. Okay, and this is where Tom Robinson is at, he wants
someone to believe in his innocence.

Brianna transformed the classroom space from a teacher-directed recalling practice to a
student directed discussion focusing on themes of justice that were integral to the text
they were reading, To Kill a Mockingbird. Brianna’s distinction between the discussion

0f texts in themselves (recalling and discussing details from the text) and what is

103

happening in the “real world” is significant to understanding what it means to read and
discuss literature in the classroom. She is positioning the practice of close analysis of
texts as something that is (at least partially) removed from everyday experience.
Therefore, her motivation to push the conversations to more “real world” topics might be
a result of her belief that the texts they were reading were somewhat distanced in time
and place from her situation. While they may have been distanced from the “real world”,
for Brianna and the students, the texts they read through the year often acted as a
springboard to discussions of current issues and topics. At the end of the interaction
above, Mrs. Oakley asked Brianna to put herself in the shoes Iof an innocent person
accused of a crime, and then connected the discussion back to the text, to help the class
understand the importance of having a lawyer as dedicated, talented, and honorable as
Atticus.

While this digression may seem to be irrelevant when compared to the privileged
reading practices (i.e., literary understanding), students engaged with these texts in ways
that provoked meaningful questions and opportunities to explore philosophical issues, as
well as the complexities of the situation in the text. At times, these instances of
springboarding afforded students opportunities to discuss current social and philosophical
issues and formulate and support reasoned arguments. ‘While these reading practices
were not directly connected to the text, they often provided a context for which students
could engage with the literary texts in new ways and with new understandings (e.g., an
understanding for the Atticus’ predicament).

It was also through these moments of digression that topics and texts related to the

students’ lives became central to the class discussions, while the specific details of the

104

text moved to the background temporarily. These digressions allowed space for students’
questions, texts, and opinions.
A little later in the interaction, Brianna continues the discussion further sparking

curiosity and discussion.

Brianna: Have innocent people ever gone to jail?
Mrs. Oakley: Of course
Student: Of course

Mrs. Oakley discusses how some people on death row spend many years there
before they are found to be innocent. Larissa asks if the class has heard of a serial
killer that was caught in the area many years ago. Just as Mrs. Oakley was going

to go on, Joey raises his hand.

Joey: Have they charged Scott Peterson9 yet? I know they are trying to
do a mistrial but—
(several people talk aloud)

Cadence: (speaking quickly) It happens all the time, people kill their wives
with an unborn child, this case is just overrated, like I understand it
is bad, it’s been like two years, just get over it. Charge him. It’s
overrated. Everyone is making it such a big celebrity craze.

Student: Exactly, somebody just [killed a women]

Mrs. Oakley: That has become sort of a celebrity //focused trial/l
Cadence: //it shouldn’t bell cause it’s sad, it’s just sad, and there are making
a big celebrity craze.

Mrs. Oakley: I don’t want to get into all these trials, but the concept is important
that we are mentioning, okay. (continuing to the “discussion quiz”)

Mrs. Oakley welcomed these digressions and believed the discussions were
important for students to be having, whether or not they were necessarily directly related
to the text. On a few occasions, when at the end of a discussion, Mrs. Oakley mentioned

to me privately that she thought the students believed they were getting her off topic and

9 Scott Peterson was found guilty for killing his pregnant wife. At the time of the study,
Scott Peterson’s court case was a constant discussion on news stations and in newspaper.

105

away from “doing work”, because they were not reading the usual literary book together
or studying the vocabulary assignments. She understood that these digressions were
important for the students and was deliberate in the way that she allowed students to

expand the topics of discussion around the texts being read.

Maintaining Reading as Close Analysis: Texts as a Springboard (Part II)

While Mrs. Oakley often privileged the use of texts as a springboard in the
teacher-led shared reading discussions, when it came time to responding to literature on
formal assessments, the reading and response that counted was close analysis of text.
This tension between what counted as an appropriate response to literature was
highlighted in a discussion after the students’ midterm exam. Based on their reading of
At Risk, Mrs. Oakley had them write essays for two questions (see Figure 7) that allowed
the students to demonstrate their understanding of the characters from the novel, as well
as what they learned about AIDS from reading the novel.

Figure 7. Essay Questions for the At-Risk Assessment

 

 

1. Think about the people you met as you read At Risk. Consider their lives and their
circumstances. Then, select three people that you felt compassion for as you read.
Devoting one paragraph to each person, discuss why you felt compassion for this
person. In other words, devote one paragraph to each of the three people your heart
went out to as you read At Risk. Be sure to fully develop your ideas about all three
characters, using a great deal of specific support from the novel.

2. Think about what you learned about AIDS as you read this novel. Then, below,
write three paragraphs discussing three separate things you learned about AIDS as a
result of reading this book. Focus on specific characters and scenes in the novel to
support your ideas. Think about how AIDS affects the person with the disease, their
family, and their friends. Devote one elaborate paragraph to how AIDS affects the
person with the disease, another paragraph to how AIDS affects the friends of the
person with the disease, and another paragraph to how AIDS affects the family of the
person with AIDS. (Mrs. Oakley had three sections below the question, one for each
of the three parts of the question.)

 

106

 

After the essay exam, a few of the students were confused (and upset) as to why
they received so few points for their responses on the second question. Mrs. Oakley
recognizing their frustration, and while wanting to help the students understand what they
need to do well on future essay exams, she discusses this concern with the students.

Mrs. Oakley: On the first set of essays where you had to write about the person
you felt compassion for, or your heart went out to, you did great,
they were excellent. . .you did beautifully. It is the second three that
caused a problem for some of you. Look at the directions:

Mrs. Oakley reads the first part of the second question, highlighting the part

where it says, “Focus on specific characters in scenes in the novel to support your

ideas.” .

Mrs. Oakley: That’s what we have been doing when we talk about literature, all
year long. Some of you for all three of the questions didn’t
mention anything about the book. You kind of talked about what
you knew about AIDS in general, just from what you knew, which
is fine that you know that but you didn’t tie it in with the book at
all, and that is where you-lost points.

She continues reading the question, and tells the class that many of them wrote

about how AIDS affects the person with the disease. She tells them that for the

second part of the question they were to write about how AIDS affects the friends
of the person, and another about how it affects the family.

Mrs. Oakley: You had to talk about specific people in the novel, not just “oh,
friends are disappointed and they don’t know if they are going to
catch it.’ And some of you kind of just talked in general, and you
didn’t bring the novel into it at all. So that is why you lost points.
So I want to show you a few examples here, if it is okay with these
people, who I think did a really nice job on this.

After getting permission from a few students, Mrs. Oakley reads through a couple

of their responses. One of the examples that she reads is James’, and she includes

107

her comments (in parentheses) about how his responses might connect to specific
details from the text.
The friends of Amanda (okay right away he is talking about the book) are greatly affected
as well. Amanda can only hangout with Jessica, her best friend, instead of other friends.
However, she has met Laurel because of Polly (Okay, and some of you really
remembered that; you tied Laurel into the friends too, excellent). Amanda hangs out with
Laurel and they get along very nicely. A lot of her friends at school left because she has
AIDS. This doesn’t always affect Amanda’s friends, but Charlie’s as well (Look at all
the stuff he is bringing in here). Charlie is no longer to hangout with Severn, because
Sevem’s mom is scared that her son will catch the disease. Last, Amanda’s family has a
tough time finding an orthodontist for Amanda to get her braces off. This is an example
of how Amanda’s AIDS affected her friends. Her normal orthodontist did not agree to
have a patient with AIDS (Okay, he’s got tons of evidence there, okay that is an example
of a really good answer).
After reading through [Lauren’s] response, Marcus explains that he didn’t feel
that the directions were explicit enough.
Marcus: I think if you ah, do this test again, for like next years classroom, I
would say if I was you, //I’d be little more specific/I
Mrs. Oakley: ”Really emphasize that//
Anthony: Yah
Mrs. Oakley: Would it have helped if I would have boldfaced that?
Marcus: Or if you would just have said, “Describe in the book how people
in the book were //treated with the disease.”//
Mrs. Oakley: //I mean saying,” “focus on specific characters and scenes in the
novel to support your ideas”. . .did you just whip through this?
Marcus: I thought support meant a couple of details, not about //how it—//
Anthony: //not how it// affected them, but how would it affect someone

because it affected someone like this because in the novel it
showed this. Instead of just like this—

108

Mrs. Oakley: So you think the question is “using the novel as a sort of a little
springboard to talk.” [Marcus and Anthony nod their heads up and
down and say, “Yes”.] And that is not how I meant it. . .because
[the two character’s experience in the book] were very different
with AIDS, very different than the experience that Andrew was
having in Philadelphia (the film they had started watching). So,
that is why, this is a novel about Amanda and her family, and I
really wanted you to really focus on that, and that is the focus of 9th
grade, literary analysis, looking at the literature, using it to support
what you have to say. So, if I use it again, I will make a bigger
deal about that, like remind people about ten times during the exam
or something.

Mrs. Oakley made explicit that being successful on essay exams involved
providing lots of specific detail from the text. In their responses to the essay questions,
Mrs. Oakley expected for students to write more than what they already knew about
AIDS. They should write developed essays about the characters and the topic, drawing
upon evidence from the different parts of the text. This became an area of confusion for
some students, especially Marcus and Anthony, who voiced that they thought that an
appropriate response would involve a more general account of how AIDS might affect
someone based on their experience with the text. This could have been a result of the
way that the question was written, where it first asks what they have learned “about AIDS
as you read this novel”, possibly suggesting for a reflective response based on the
characters, while then asking them to write about specific aspects of the novel (affect on
person, friends, and family). This tension could also have been a result of the way in
which using literature as a springboard was valued in the teacher-led shared reading
practice. Mrs. Oakley made clear, however, that there were two separate instances in the
question where it mentioned that they should support their responses with details from

the text, and some students, “for all three of the questions didn’t mention anything about

the book.” The essay exam and the interaction above reinforced what counts as reading

109

in the class and as 9th graders: “literary analysis, looking at the literature, using it to
support what you have to say”, and not simply using some part of the text as a
“springboard” for issues that are not supported by details from the text. While Mrs.
Oakley and the students worked to expand reading to include using texts to “springboard”
to personal and current issues through the teacher-led shared reading practice, when
being assessed, reading only included the recalling of details and the analysis of fictional

ICXIS.

Negotiating Being a “Reader”

Mrs. Oakley and the students worked within and through these constructions of
what it meant to read to position themselves as readers or as non-readers in the
classroom. This positioning also helped to construct the boundaries of what counts as
reading in the classroom. Through the examination of what it meant to be a “reader”, I
illustrate how the participants positioned themselves in the classroom and how this in
turn also helped to maintain or expand the boundaries of what it meant to read in the

classroom.

Being a “Reader”: Books and Pleasure

Although reading assignments were seen as a chore for most students, for a few
students reading literature (either for school or on their own) was a rewarding and
pleasurable experience. Reading literature was an intimate part of who they were and
what they enjoyed doing. Mrs. Oakley modeled this love for reading through her
excitement and passion for characters and the language in poetry and literature. The

stories she told to the students of her childhood often characterized her as a future

110

English teacher, “kissing each book before she put it on the [classroom] bookshelf.” She
told the class that, “when I read I just have all kinds of cool stuff going on in my head, I
can hear the voices, I love to read.”

Mrs. Oakley connected English class and being an English student with reading
large amounts of literature.

You guys know of course I was an English major in college. . .as I was going

through all that reading, and you know reading underneath my pillow with a

flashlight, and reading on into college, literally thousands of books. . .After doing

all that and continuing to read, every year I’m reading new books that haven’t
read before, that I haven’t taught before.

In addition to Mrs. Oakley, Cadence also contributed to defining reading as a
joyful experience with fictional books in the way that they positioned themselves as
“readers” in the classroom. Cadence, more than any student, verbally positioned herself
as a “reader” of fiction.

At one point in the year, Cadence said that she liked mysteries, and mentioned

R.L. Stein and other authors that she liked. Marcus smiled and looked at James in

disbelief.
Marcus: (to Cadence) How do you know all these?
Cadence: Because I’m a bookworm.

Being a “reader” to Cadence and to the students in the classroom meant that she grew up
devouring books at a young age, and delves into books (fiction) in and out-of-school. On
a few occasions Cadence told the class about her mother who was an English teacher at
the local community college and taught writing courses. Her mother, and her fiction-rich
background provided Cadence with confidence as she approached texts in class and

navigated the boundaries of what it meant to be a reader.

111

During a “springboar ” discussion of how children learn to read, Cadence proudly
told the class,

my mom used to read to me all the time, and all I can really say is look at me

now. (Mrs. Oakley and the class laughs) My mom she, instead of most [mothers]

are like, get out of the front of the television, [my mom says] ‘Cadence put down
the book’.

Through their interviews and during interactions in class, these students
constructed reading as a deeply pleasurable and personal experience. They positioned
themselves as readers and writers, and possibly future English teachers. Mrs. Oakley and
Cadence, through their positioning themselves as “readers”, who individually read large
amounts of fiction for pleasure, further maintain the boundaries of the English student as

a “reader” of literature.
Being a “Reader”: The Case of Marcus (Part I)

“I’d rather clean my room than read a book”.

Marcus was a key informant who was central to the negotiation of literacy
practices in the classroom. Like Cadence, Marcus was quite vocal about his relationship
with reading. However, unlike Cadence, Marcus was quite sure that he was not a
“reader”, at least in terms of a reader who reads fiction for pleasure in the ways that are
privileged in the construction of reading and being a “reader” described above. However,
Marcus read other texts that he and others did not value as “English” texts. Therefore, he
considered himself a “non-reader” in the constructions of a reader privileged in the
classroom. In an informal interview with Marcus and his mother, he said that he had not

read for pleasure in years.

112

Marcus: 1 have other things I can do that are more fun. I don’t think reading
is fun. I think it is a chore. I don’t view it as something fun to do. I
would rather clean my room than read a book.
Upon hearing that Marcus placed reading lower than cleaning his room surprised his
mother, who knew that Marcus did not like cleaning his room much at all. Marcus’
mother was an avid reader of literature, enjoyed going to plays, and loved creative
writing. She told me that she provided lots of books for her children when they were
young and read to them often, with the hopes that all three of her children would love to
read like she does. According to her, this is not the case. Her daughter, Marcus’ older
sister, had just disclosed to her that she had not read an entire book from cover to cover
while having. just graduated from high school. She stated to me in embarrassment: “So I
have three kids and none of them like to read.” She explained that Marcus “does not love
reading like I do.” When reading is viewed in this way—someone who reads book length
fictional literature from beginning to end, reads for pleasure, and for long hours of the

day and night—Marcus positioned himself (and was positioned by others) in opposition

to this construction of the reader.

Finding Space within and through the Boundaries of the “Reader”.

In the classroom, Marcus was consistently positioned (and positioned himself) as
a non-reader when reading was constructed as being associated with the practices of the
classroom—reading fiction, analyzing for symbols and themes, and reading for pleasure.
Positioning Marcus as a non-reader in the classroom was acknowledged and even
perpetuated by the teacher. When introducing the books from which the students have to
choose for their “Novel Buddies” project, Mrs. Oakley joked with Marcus and the

students, “we have Famous All Over Town [to read], which Marcus is picking because

113

it’s the longest one.” Marcus’ positioning by the teacher as in opposition to the
privileged constructions of being a reader Similar to this were woven into discussions and
texts10 throughout the year. It became a running joke with the class, where other students
(and good friends) participated in making comments about his lack of reading when
defined by the valued constructions of the classroom. It was even a joke in which he took
part; when describing a poetry assignment, the teacher asked the class to write a poem
about something that “moves” them.

Mrs. Oakley: (pointing to Marcus) you know, if poetry moves you, like when
you go home, before you go to sleep at night, you read a poetry
book and you go ‘m’ I love this.

Marcus: It ms my eyelids down. (he uses his fingers to move his eyes
closed)

Positioning Marcus as a non-reader was a practice that became a staple of the classroom
culture, and was one of the many ways that the class constructed what it meant to read.
Through the work of the teacher, other students in the classroom, and Marcus himself, he
was positioned as a reluctant reader, choosing the smallest book and only reading when
required to do well in school.

In the following series of interactions, each occurring during the “Novel Buddies”
weeklong activity, Marcus struggles to find space within and through the boundaries of
reading and the construction of the reader. Right before class started on the first day, a
few students began talking about the assignment they heard Mrs. Oakley was going to
give them. After hearing that they were going to start to read a new book, Marcus lets

out a sigh.

Marcus: All summer, I never picked a book up. . .I don’t like to read.

 

'0 A few times, Mrs. Oakley included in multiple choice tests responses that reflected
Marcus’ lack of enjoyment of reading the texts of the class. [Example]

114

Cadence: How can you not?
Marcus: 1 can read perfectly fine, I just don’t like ( ).

Marcus struggles to position himself within the definitions of what it meant to read, by
stating that he can read “perfectly fine,” but just not in the way that Cadence or Ella
might. On other occasions Marcus states that he knows how to “read” (i.e., skills and
comprehension), but that he just does not participates in the ways privileged in the
classroom (i.e., book-length, fiction, for pleasure, and as a solitary practice).
In two interactions later in the week (during two class periods), we see Marcus

trying to navigate the possible positions of being a reader that were available for him in
the classroom. In the first interaction, a few students were talking amongst themselves

and when Gary Paulson’s name entered the discussion, Marcus joined in.

Marcus: [Hatchet] is the only book that I ever really liked.

Mrs. Oakley: Cool, have you read anything else by him?

Miles: I read the second one ( ).

Mrs. Oakley: They are good books. Did you like ( )?

Marcus: I liked Night, that was a good one too.

Mrs. Oakley: Night, Elie Wiesel, yeah. So you like more either adventure,
realistic kind of stuff?

Marcus: Something has to happen. (Mrs. Oakley laughs.)

Marcus is struggling to make sense of his place within the boundaries of being a reader in
the classroom. He attempts to provide some logic for why he likes some of the books
l‘ead in class and not others. Marcus’ most clear way of putting it was: “something has to

happen.”
At the end of the week long “Novel Buddies” unit, Mrs. Oakley asked for some

feedback on the books they read.

Mrs. Oakley: I want to get some feedback on the books from you right new real
quickly. Should I offer these books to kids or not? Okay, what was
your opinion on Bless the Beasts and the Children?

115

Marcus: I actually think it was an alright book—

Cadence: Marcus thinks a book is good?
Marcus: I didn’t say that, I didn’t say it was good.
Marcus: Yeah, it was all right, I mean, I think it was good cause it did seem

like the only kind of guy relating book here.

Cadence challenges Marcus’ comments because he moves away from his non-reader
position. Her comment forced Marcus to consider how be fit within the boundaries of
what it meant to be a reader in the classroom.

Mrs. Oakley, Marcus, and the students construct reading as “9'h graders” as
reading for fiction and individually reading for pleasure, further shaping the boundary of
the reader in the classroom. While Marcus wrestled to try to understand his place in a

Classroom where the possibilities of being a reader are narrowly drawn, he remains to be

a “non-reader” in the classroom.

Being a “Reader”: The Case of Marcus (Part 11)

While Marcus spent much of his time in the classroom claiming space as a non-
reader and helping to shape (and resist) the constructions of the reader, he carried on an
active literate life, where reading texts were integral to his day-to-day social activities.
Marcus was an active reader of texts when examined from a broader perspective of a
I'eader, one that includes a more encompassing variety of practices than simply reading
1 iterature, recalling and analyzing details of the text, and reading for pleasure in solitude.

Much of Marcus’ involvement with literacy resulted from the social practices he
engaged in related to athletics, in the home, on the practice field, or at the school.

Marcus was a successful athlete and much of his daily activities involved aspects related

116

to sports (e.g., lifting weights, discussing games with his friends, reading the sports pages
of the newspaper).

The textual saturation of the sports world for Marcus was quite remarkable. It
incorporated texts from the radio, television, computer, school and city newspapers,
informational and shopping magazines, daily conversations with peers and adults, team
play books, and records of statistics. These texts were always nested within particular

social practices where the act of reading was an important part of being intimately
connected and up-to-date with the local, state, and national sports worlds. In addition, the
reading took many forms and utilized a variety of skills (critical and strategic), whether it
was reading the large amounts of text on popular sports websites, scanning the newspaper
box scores, or reading multimodal advertisements for best performing shoes. Indeed,
Marcus’ reading practices related to sports were an integral part of his participation in a
variety of social practices and communities, and will likely continue to be important for
years to come.

Marcus’ reading practices were largely multimodal in nature, as were other

students’ practices. Participating in the video game culture was the most obvious

instance of a multimodal social practice. Like many of the boys in the class, video games

were an important social and textual resource for Marcus. He engaged in conversations
about video games and arranged times to visit friends to play multiple player games (at

times up to 4 people on one game station, and many more when connected to the

internet).
An integral part of the X-Box Live game station that Marcus and his friends

played was the communication with those that were on his buddy list. One way they

117

would communicate was through text messaging on the video game screen. This was
similar to using instant messenger on the Internet, or sending text messages with their
phones. The second way that they communicated when playing the game was verbally.
Using a headset with a microphone, Marcus would talk to the other players who were
playing the game with him, whether they were down the street or in the country of
Mexico.

In addition to video gaming, Marcus’ multimodal textual experiences included
information searching and evaluation on the Internet. Positioned as a “researcher” by his
mother, Marcus utilized both hierarchal subject guides and search engines to find
information that would help him compare cars and other family purchases. Not using the
Consumer Reports website because it costs money to join, Marcus does the researching
and compilation of information himself by going to a variety of websites (The National
Highway Safety Association for crash test results; various car manufacturing websites) in
order to “see what each car has and then compare them.” He “[does] a lot of reading on
that,” to gather the information about the cars’ features, safety tests, and prices to then

make a recommendation to his parents about which car to pursue further. When looking
to buy palm pilots, phones, or new sports equipment, or when exploring research on the
physical effects and potential side effects of using certain protein shakes, Marcus was the
‘ ‘researcher in [the] whole family, according to his mother” Marcus’ interest and ability
to access and evaluate content on the intemet was a valued practice in their household,

and Marcus’ mother recognized that Michael could make a lot of money one day because

Of these skills.

118

Summary: Marcus as a “Reader”

It is important to point out that most of Marcus’ reading practices, as well as
many of the other students in the class, were largely different than those that were
privileged in the 9‘h grade English classroom, not necessarily “better” or “worse”, or
more or less complex than those in the classroom. Marcus’ involvement in this rich array
of literacy practices illustrates three patterns that were reflective of the students’ personal
reading practices, which were different than the reading practices of the classroom. The
first is that Marcus’ literacy practices consisted of reading multimodal texts or practices
that involved many different modes. Film, television, intemet, magazine, newspaper, and
video games provide opportunities to utilize multiple modes for design, as well as
meaning making. Students were actively engaging in a variety of practices that required
their consumption of multimodal texts. Second, Marcus’ reading practices afforded him
possibilities of interaction. He was able to interact with multiple players in video games
through a variety of ways, discuss baseball highlights seen on television with friends, and
make decisions in a hypertext environment where each click of the mouse changes the
future possible options. And third, the texts that were important to his reading practices
were designed in such a way as to offer multiple paths for the reader to make sense of and
construct personal readings (Kress, 2003). This (relative) Openness that is seen in
Marcus’ video games can also be observed in the way he chooses how to read the box
scores for his rival teams performance, or in the way that he chooses what to focus on

when researching a website for automobile safety.

119

Summary

Through these two common literacy practices (i.e., teacher-led shared reading and
assigned reading) and the interactions around texts (e.g., the quizzes and tests, and the
joint creation of the list of strategies), Mrs. Oakley and the students came to define what
it meant to read, to interpret and analyze texts, and to respond to and connect with texts.
The teacher and students began to expand upon the construction of the reader to allow for
reading to involve more social interaction (e.g., resisting solitary reading) as part of the
reading process and to allow for the purposes of reading to include the “springboarding”
to current issues unrelated to the details and analysis of the text. In the end, the
expansion of the boundaries of reading are limited and the privileged forms of reading
become the close analysis of fiction, as illustrated by the various assessments (e.g.,
quizzes and midterms).

The boundaries of what it means to be a reader were narrowly defined and
became limiting for Marcus. He positioned himself as a “non-reader” (further
maintaining the boundaries), which is in opposition to the privileged ways of being a
reader in the classroom (e. g., reading large amounts of literature for pleasure, an
individual and personally meaningful activity). Based on the constructions of the reader
privileged in the classroom, Marcus fit the role of a “non-reader”. However, when
examining Marcus’ textual practices outside of the boundaries established in the
classroom, as compared to in-school and out of school boundaries, he was a reader who
was engrossed in texts in several areas of his life (e.g., intemet searching and evaluation,
video gaming, sports involvement). Through the maintaining and expanding of reading

practices, Mrs. Oakley and the students constructed the boundaries of reading in ways

120

that proved to exclude Marcus as a reader, having possible implications for his future

literacy learning and participation as an English student.

12]

CHAPTER 5: WRITING AND TEXTUAL PRODUCTION: MAINTAINING

CONVENTIONS AND EXPANDING BOUNDARIES

While the boundaries of what it meant to read as “9th graders” were relatively
narrowly constructed in the classroom, the boundaries of what counted as writing and
textual production were expansive and wide reaching. Mrs. Oakley created many
opportunities for students to produce texts that represented a variety of modes and genres,
and were for a range of purposes. Writing and producing texts as 9‘h graders ranged from
writing print-based persuasive and position essays to multimodal personal texts.
Messages about the nature and purposes of writing became central to the construction of
literacy and what it meant to study English as “9th graders” through the negotiation of
three writing and textual practices: formal essay writing, representing and responding to

literature, and personal writing.

Representing and Responding to Literature

Since the primary focus of Mrs. Oakley’s 9th grade English class was the reading
of selected literature and the analysis of characters and themes central to their plots,
writing became an integral means to interacting with and responding to texts. Mrs.
Oakley provided several production practices that centered on responding to or
representing the literature texts they were reading as a class. Usually these production
practices were worth a large percentage of their quarter grades and occurred when the
class had finished reading a piece of literature. The primary purpose of the written events
were to allow the students to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of the

literature, as well as their ability to analyze from the literature that they had read together

122

as a class. The textual production that resulted form this practice took a range of forms

during the year.

Responding to Literature in Essays

Essay quizzes and tests were one form of the responding and representing
practice, which required Students to respond in print to particular questions the teacher
posed. The essay questions were intended to evaluate the way in which the students were
able to draw upon what they read and discussed in class. For example, common response
focused questions were: “Describe the newspaper clippings Lou Ann collects [and]
discuss why she does this and what this reveals about her personality” (question related to
the Bean Trees novel). The responses were written in class without the use of the text.
The primary purpose of these written texts were to demonstrate through writing their
understanding of the text, and their ability to recall and generalize about a character’s
personality from various parts of the texts (for more of a discussion of this practice, see

discussion in chapter 4).

Expanding Response Texts: Matti-genre Texts

A second literacy event that students engaged in that reflected the response to
literature practice was writing from a character’s position in the novel. One example of
this was after reading To Kill a Mockingbird, when Mrs. Oakley provided six different
options for students to write about, each asking them to pretend or imagine they were a
character. Depending on the option they chose, they wrote a eulogy, an editorial, a letter,
a dialog between two characters, or an entry in a diary (see Figure 8). This assignment

afforded students the opportunity to demonstrate their understanding of the novel and a

123

character’s development by producing a text in a different genre than the essay exam
form. Each of the questions pushed students to draw from the text, based on what they
have come to know and think about a particular character (e.g., Arthur “Boo” Radley)

and speculate as to what type of interaction or text might'be created (e.g., a eulogy for

Tom Robinson, or a letter to Bob Ewell).

Figure 8. Character Reflections for To Kill a Mockingbird

 

 

Directions: Choose ONE of the following options relating to our study of To Kill a
Mockingbird.

l.

Pretend you are Reverend Sykes. Write the eulogy that you will deliver at the
funeral of the Tom Robinson.

Pretend you are Mr. Underwood. Write the editorial he wrote for the Maycomb
Tribune regarding the trial of Tom Robinson

Imagine for a moment that Bob Ewell was not killed by Boo Radley. You are an
attorney. Make up a lawyer name for yourself. Bob Ewell has asked that you defend
him against the charge of attempted murder of the Finch children. Write a letter to
Bob Ewell in which you agree to accept his case or reject it. Whichever decision you
come to, be sure that you clearly explain it to Mr. Ewell.

Pretend you are Mayella Ewell. You have just learned of your father’s “accident.”
Ever since Tom Robinson’s conviction and subsequent death, you have wanted to tell
Atticus Finch how much you regret having participated in the trial. Since the trial,
you have come to realize that Atticus was not trying to “mock you” and you know
that, because he is an accepting and caring individual, he will not betray your
“confession” to anyone. Now that your father is dead and you no longer have to fear
his wrath, you decide to tell Atticus your feelings and explain why you felt you had to
do what you did. Write a dialogue between Mayella Ewell and Atticus on this subject.

Imagine that you are Scout. Several year have passed and you are still brooding
about the fact that you and Jem never gave Boo Radley anything in return. Imagine
that you see Boo again. Write a conversation with Mr. Authur Radley in which you
apologize and Boo reacts to the apology.

Imagine that you are Boo Radley. Write an entry in your diary in which you
describe a typical day in your life.

 

124

 

Similar to the purposes of the essay exams and the combined print/visual texts,
the character speculation assignments centered on one of the official texts and expected
the students to demonstrate their understanding of the text, by asking them to draw from
the text to speculate on a character’s action or interaction. The task was primarily
focused on the content of what was written and required a particular orientation to
reading the text, one that was consistent with the construction of the reader in the class as
described in chapter four. Since the genre or the design of the multimodal text was
deemphasized in these practices, these practices did not reflect an expansion of the

textual diversity that was also part of the practice.

Expanding Response Texts: Print/Visual Multimodal Texts

In a conversation with Mrs. Oakley she explained how she believed that the class
does enough of the formal literary responses. Therefore, Mrs. Oakley assigned
opportunities other than essay tests for students to respond to and represent an official
text they read, expanding the appropriate ways of responding and demonstrating
knowledge of the text. For two of the novels during the year, students produced texts as
part of a “culminating activity”, where they combined print with visual design. The first
assignment was a “reduction” of their first novel of the year, Ernest Hemingway’s The
Old Man and the Sea, into “essential happenings”. Mrs. Oakley asked them to create a
reduction of the novel, where she wrote in the assignment sheet that the purpose was to
“crystallize the novel into its essential and significant parts. . .and will also help you
remember the Storyline of the novel for the rest of your life.” Each student represented
the novel by selecting 12 significant events, and illustrating them on large white poster

board paper in graphic novel form, with quotes and plot lines beneath each picture. The

125

Figure 9. Two Frames of Stephen’s Old Man and the Sea “Reduction” Text

 

 

Ste... .9... < .n> 0955“,

   

 

4.3 <
«333...... 3555 E...
«a 8 n. h. 23%: <
«2.55 a 355 a.

 

 

 

 

BE 33» 9. E253 E3 223%. w:

. 3.133 Se “1.3. n 395.3“. 9.3. 1.4

 

.in: 2.:
was...» a: $322. .22.... a:

. “7.2: cats; 2:. was. t
E: :53 3. a 2.: «2:5» 2:.

 

L

 

126

students included three references to symbolism and some representation of the literary
thematic elements of heroic code and grace under pressure, which they discussed in class
when reading the novel. Many of the students produced extremely well detailed and
colorful texts. They were displayed during the class so others could look at the projects,
and then a few particularly colorful and well-detailed projects were displayed on the wall
of the room (see Figure 9). I
Texts that combined print with visual media became a common textual practice.
In another “culminating activity”, students created a Turning Points Scrapbook about a
character from Barbara Kingsolver’s Bean Trees. Students selected eight points in the
development of the character they chose and created a page that illustrated and described
the “turning point”. Since they had already created a scrapbook of their own “turning
points” (explained in more detail in the “personal writing” section), the students were
familiar with the structure of the scrapbook that Mrs. Oakley was intending: a story about
the turning point, a message about what was learned, and visual symbols representing‘the
turning point.
Most students followed a fairly common textual design, like James’ scrapbook
(see Figure 10). Each of the eight pages reflected a standard print essay in paragraph
form. Between the turning point story and the message was a visual representation, either
drawn or clipped from a magazine or a website. The images inserted into the text usually
illustrated one of the important concepts that the student was trying to convey in the print

part of the text (e.g., holding hands representing friendship as illustrated in James’ text).

127

Figure 10. James’ “Turning Point” Text

Another significant turning point that huppcncd in my life was when I met
Esperanza and Estevan. Esperanza and Estevan an: a married couple and are friends of
Mattie from Guatemala city; ”The man had been an English teacher in Guatemala City."
Estevan could actually speak bcttcr English than any of us. We were all having a picnic
near a beautiful crock when I was introduced .to him. It was Mattie. Lou Ann. Dwayne
Ray. Esperanza. Estevan. Turtle. and l. Esperanza and Estevan had lost there family and
friends including their daughter Ismcne because Guatemala was at war and the the enemy
govcmmcnt took these people so that Esperanza and Estevan would feed them
information. It was very hard to listen to what they had to go through. When Esperanza
stares at Turtle. Estevan explains to me that she reminds her of there daughter. I sort of
dcvclopcd a crush on Estevan as I became more and more of his friend. This was a
significant turning point for me because getting to know these people led me to have two
more very supportive and caring friends.

«1, :2 ‘

  

Frt'enthlt i P

l have lcamcd :1 lot from meeting Esperanza and Estevan. From their stories. I
now know and understand how and why there are so many illegal immigratcs in the
United States. This made me want to hold on to them cvcn tougher because the thought
of them leaving me was unexplainable. Estcvan's "hell and heaven" story was very
interesting and made me realize how much I really do like Estevan and how much I
admire his intelligence. The was about how in hell. pcoplc sit around a big table with
plenty of food. starving to death because they must cat with long-handed spoons and
cannot manage lo get the spoons in their mouths. He says that in heaven. the people use
long-handed spoons to feed one another. Estevan then feeds Tunlc. who has been
struggling with her food. :1 new piece of pineapple.

128

Figure 11. Brianna’s “Turning Point” Text

 

129

For a few students, the textual design reflected less of the formal written essay text and
more consistent with that of a multimodal scrapbook. Brianna’s pages of her project (see
Figure l 1) were designed in such a way that the print was off-center and rotated left
slightly. The border of the printed text was designed and a different color than the
background. These features allowed for a visual separation between the print and the rest
of the text, where the image was not simply an insertion into the essay (as in James’ page
in Figure 10). The spatial and visual separation of the print from the rest of the larger
page worked to deemphasize the essay-like qualities of the text and highlighted the
scrapbook genre and the possibilities for multimodality that were there to utilize. The
print of Brianna’s text was also more informal (e. g., Brianna writes, “Not only was
leaving Turtle with her a bad idea, but allowing her to go to the park. . .who knew what
could have happened”), again reflecting the personal and intimate way that the character
might have designed a scrapbook of her “turning points”.

By providing the students with an opportunity to design a non-traditional essay
response text, Mrs. Oakley provided different possibilities and resources for the students
to construct their text. Providing the visual and spatial mode of representation offered
students new “ways of conceptualizing, thinking, and communicating” (Kress, 2000b, p.
195). As each mode has its affordances and constraints, combining the two modes of
linguisticiand visual offered students different possibilities than if they were to just write
responses to essay questions. It allowed students opportunities to construct a setting and
theme and to reflect a “style” of the character, that they might not been able to do without
these modes of representation. While the scrapbooks provided opportunities for students

to explore the “turning points” for a character, they also provided opportunities to value

130

other forms of design than the traditional print-based, which dominates English texts in

schools.

Maintaining Print and Content in Multimodal Texts

With these writing events there was a strong concern for engaging the students in
literary analysis, especially character development, during this first year in high school.
English. Therefore, although Mrs. Oakley provided opportunities for expanding the
privileged texts of the classroom, the central focus of The Old Man and the Sea
“reduction” activity and the Bean Trees Turning Points scrapbook was to evaluate the
students’ understanding and analysis of the novel. The focus was on producing a
representation of the novel in a “reduction” form. As a result, much of the attention and
emphasis of the assignments remained on the assessment of the print, and whether or not
the student had an accurate and in-depth understanding of the official text.

The lack of emphasis on the visual production of the text was partly due to the
fact that assessment of visual and spatial aspects of texts were unclear, when compared to
the print-based text. Mrs. Oakley made explicit on the assignment sheet for the reduction
assignment for The Old Man and the Sea that the students were not assessed based on
their “artistic talent, per se,” but on their “neatness and attention to detail.” Discussions
about expectations of what consisted a neat and detailed text were non-existent. At times,
Mrs. Oakley would hold up a project that was particularly careful in detail (and usually
drawn fairly realistically), and say, “Isn’t this wonderful.” She would hang up certain
projects on the classroom walls recognizing texts that she described as examples of being
created with thought and meticulous detail. She often told the class that many of the

projects looked beautiful and looked like they spent lots of time on them. Often the

131

reactions from students would reveal what they thought good texts were. When looking
at Brianna’s scrapbook, which was about twice the size of most students’ scrapbook (in
order to fit all the carefully chosen colorful overlapping text and pictures), Marcus
remarked to his peers that Brianna was going to receive “tons of extra credit” for her
work. It was obvious to him that, even without reading her scrapbook, Brianna’s text was
impressive and would be valued by Mrs. Oakley just by the visual design alone.

Mrs. Oakley and the students had not explicitly discussed what distinguished a
“good” multimodal (especially visual and spatial) text from a “less good” text, although
there were implicit standards that were followed having to do with details and neatness.
There were no rubrics for evaluating the design of the scrapbooks, the way there were
rubrics for the formal assignments. While there is a grammar (which is in the developing
stages) for visual representation (Kress, 2003, p. 163), in the English classroom it was not
established and conventionalized in the way that students’ formal writing (e.g., 5
paragraph essays) was presented and evaluated. Therefore, in these practices, the print-
based aspects of the texts were highlighted during the evaluation, advantaging print-based
text over the visual and spatial aspects of the texts.

Scrapbooks and other multimodal texts expanded the possibilities of the
classroom, enabling space for other normally unsanctioned texts and practices to enter the
official space of the classroom. While these practices were important in expanding
writing texts in the classroom, they ultimately were unfulfilled in the possible ways they
might have led to valuing the diverse textual practices available. Importantly, students
did not receive explicit guidelines or have a comprehensive understanding of what

distinguished a good design from a bad one, except for one’s attention to detail and the

132

appearance of the amount of time put into the project. Additionally, students were graded
on the content they provided (although extra credit for especially detailed pieces like
Brianna’s), and the printed aspects of the text. Therefore, James and Brianna’s text were
both seen as exemplars and shown to other English classes, although Brianna’s
multimodal design was much more characteristic of the scrapbook genre. Ultimately, the
lack of attention provided to design in the construction and assessment of the texts
worked to maintain the traditional aspects of the practice, privileging the print aspects of

the text and official goal of recalling details from the text.

“It’s almost like writing notes to each other, but using the literature too”: Hybrid

Writing Practices and Opportunities for Expansion

While goal of responding to official texts remained consistent throughout many
literacy events, the genre of texts were expanded to reflect a variety of different forms.
These practices were important spaces for facilitating the dialogic interaction between the
official and unofficial texts and practices, and further valuing textual diversity and
students’ personal literacies in the classroom.

The Novel Buddies letters that the students wrote to each other for the Novel
Buddies project (see chapter 4 for more detail of Novel Buddies project) were an
important expansion of the representing writing practice. After individually reading a
few chapters of the selected book each day, students wrote letters to one or two other
students who were reading the same book. The assignment sheet (in Appendix D) that
Mrs. Oakley handed out described the letter as a “personal letter,” where they could
discuss their “response[s] to the novel. . .focus[ing] on section[s] [they] found particularly

fascinating, shocking, surprising, enlightening, etc.” In addition, she writes that they

133

should talk about characters, what they are learning about the historical context, how they
relate to a character or how they would respond in a particular situation, as well as any
emerging themes they notice in the book. “So many things to talk about as you read,”
Mrs. Oakley writes in the assignment sheet. Although the letters were to be “personal,”
according to the assignment sheet, the letters were very similar to the literature response
practices described above (e.g., demonstrate understanding, discuss thematic and
character analyses). However, Mrs. Oakley pointed out during the discussion of the
assignment that:

Mrs. Oakley: You get to write these to each other, it’s almost like writing notes

to each other, but using the literature too.
Cadence: Ugh
Mrs. Oakley: I know occasionally you will talk about personal things in the letter
too.

Mrs. Oakley recognized that Cadence and Skye saw these letters as opportunities for
them to write about personal issues to each other, which they had voiced in the previous
class period (Cadence mentioned that she was going through a personal relationship that
was similar to the character in the book).

The students in the classroom wrote letters to each other, describing and
responding to the book they were reading. Like other students, Cadence utilized this
opportunity to integrate her social relationships and personal literacies into the classroom

hybrid literacy event. Figure 12 shows Cadence’s first letter to Skye, after reading four

chapters of Children of the River (Linda Crew, 1991).

134

Figure 12. Cadence’s First “Novel Buddies” Letter to Skye

..-.. . ‘. ”a; _\.u

,, tho. all!!!”

 

Eli—2099+. km};
0503mm +m$;d%%9m
_ x I, .

 

m
\ knugm +Dzlgkn£t mam
+0 *0? do, do + ht V 172%
. op" \ 12‘ £242
”‘3 because mms «Whom/10 (fim
:omllnen Yathmds me So maliqg
MAE out Hana/UM 1:1“on “to Chit,

\nmh,u+leos+ um olbwed+0 dale
mm m Ho 80* her husband 13

135

Figure 12 continued.

CHQSEAL

 

””000“ [+0 gm . mlbgdkl... $9.00ng W3
M2. wowummc... \wmm mm
hegas 00% 00004.
mi mount or -0100
13003003000; 20:18 2

\0 \_+_ «206“ \h

oat 00+ LS ‘ mix-C £01wa
wocflr ..k-Ww (mm (Q—
9 d \Qin+ké_12 we“, \Shoom
9&0 40y: L Mo gamer)
L—‘i LAL, Ucve K10 We 05' IB‘WS \

  

While starting her letter off by stating that she would rather be writing just a
“casual note” to Skye, Cadence continued to write an informal letter focusing on some of
the areas that Mrs. Oakley wanted the students to direct their attention to in their letters
(e.g., initial impressions of the characters, things they noticed when reading). There were
many differences between this letter and Cadence’s usual classroom writing. First, she
wrote simple sentence constructions and in a form that resembled a dialog (or an
invitation to a dialogue), including interrogatives and shared knowledge. Second,

Cadence utilized abbreviations and graphical constructions (e.g., “lol” [laugh out loud],

136

*sigh*) reflecting personal textual resources, which were unsanctioned in other practices
privileged in the classroom. Finally, she wrote about topics that would normally be
unsanctioned in a formal essay response, specifically her romantic relationship and
inability to formally date Ken (whose code name Cadence and Skye created so Mrs.
Oakley did not know). Throughout the letters, the relationship with Ken resurfaced and
became a point of social connection between herself and Skye, where Mrs. Oakley was
on the outside. The affordances and constraints of the genre allowed for Cadence to
construct “a response” to this reading in a way that was significantly different than if she
were writing an in-class essay response.

This writing practice afforded Cadence the opportunity to integrate experiences
and textual resources that would otherwise be unsanctioned from the classroom. The
design of Cadence’s letters about the novel resembled the form of her online journal (see
Figure 13). While Cadence engaged in a variety of textual practices in many aspects of
her life, one area that was important to her was her on-line space. On her website,
Cadence shared music lyrics she had written, “rant[ed] about stuff going on in [her]
hea ” in a journal, and posted her stories written in past classes asking friends for
feedback. She was quite proficient in each of the genres of writing. When examining her
joumaling practices on the website, it became clear that Cadence utilized this informal,
personal “ranting” genre in ways that she (and others).found important and meaningful.

Figure 13. A Section of Cadence’s Online journal

 

 

2/15/05

Oh! this week were watching PEAR HARBOR in us history. . .Ben Affleck. . .Josh
Hamett. . . *drools all over the keyboard* lol we took evil notes in science today, and then
we had that weird quiz thingy. . .yeah, anyhoo, I had a bad day! ! !! But its all good now. . .I
got to go to piano and write some more music...

 

. l37

 

Clearly, her “Novel Buddies” letters reflected her textual resources important to
her joumaling on the website, utilizing the informal and intimate style. While Mrs.
Oakley provided space for Cadence and other students to incorporate unsanctioned
knowledge and textual resources intoclass, truly reflecting students’ practices and
expanding school definitions remain a tricky situation, as Cadence shares in her letter.

As a result of the “Novel Buddies” letter being a hybrid between a school task (i.e.,
demonstrating knowledge of book) and a personal literacy practice (i.e., writing a
personal letter to a friend), the practice would unlikely ever reflect the kind of text that
Cadence might send to Skye, or the type of text that Cadence writes on her online journal.
Cadence wrote about this often in her letters. She signaled in the letter that she would
write about more personal information (e. g., “new developments on the Cadence/Ken
relationship. letca know later. I’ll write you a note tomorrow”) and that it would be much
more enjoyable writing about topics other than the book they were required to read. In
part of her second letter (one which she chose to type), Cadence highlights this difference
(see Figure 14).

Figure 14. A Section of Cadence’s Third “Novel Buddies” Letter to Skye

 

Yeah, all my letters are turning out to be VERY friendly. I mean, all I want to talk
about is boys. I would say that Sundara’s and Jonathan’s relationships remind me of
yours and Jack’s (code name. I donno, let me know if you come up with a better one.)
yeaya!

 

 

The nature of the assignment allowed for Cadence to engage in some of the same

design practices and social topics that she was able to do in her journal. She also engaged

138

 

in some thoughtful reflection on the book, which was the teacher’s main goal. This
writing practice allowed for expanded ways of engaging with texts, integrating students’

experiences and textual resources.

Formal Writing: Maintaining Official Writing Practices

A unitary language makes its real presence felt as a force for overcoming this

heteroglossia, imposing specific limits to it, guaranteeing a certain maximum of

mutual understanding and crystallizing into a real. . .unity (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 270).

In the midst of textually diverse and stratifying practices, pressures remain and
limits are imposed that work towards the stability of the official practices (i.e.,
conventions, privileged genres). These pressures for centralizing and limiting language
to defend a formalized and unified official system of language “from the pressure of
growing heteroglossia” were most evident in the formal Writing Lab events (p. 271). The
formal writing that students engaged in during Writing Lab became an integral practice in
defining what it meant to write in the classroom, and was an important force in
maintaining official writing practices. The Writing Lab was the formal “seminar”
integrated into all first-year English courses. During four separate weeks of the year
(four one-week periods spread out over the year), Mrs. Porter (another English teacher)
led the class in a week-long formal writing seminar. During the week, the students would
be given a few essay prompts with the task of writing a formal essay in response to the
prompt during the week. They spent class time outlining their ideas, developing theses
statements, writing rough drafts, editing each other’s essays, and writing final copies.
Once finished, Mrs. Porter and a group of English teachers evaluated the essays. The

essays included a variety of topics (e. g., characters or themes in official and unofficial

139

texts, whether or not to allow cell-phones in school), all with the goal of improving

students’ expository writing.

‘Being’ Verbs and “Being” Intelligent in the Writing Lab

Two patterns pertaining to the construction of what it meant to write in 9th grade
English were significant to the Writing Lab practice, and the maintaining of official
practices of English. The first pattern was the recurring attention to the students’
language use. During the first week-long session in early fall, the students learned that
the focus of their time during the lab, and the assistance that Mrs. Porter would provide
for the students, would be directed towards the mechanics and stylistic features of their
writing, one major area” of the state assessment they would take their junior year.
Within the area of mechanics, Mrs. Porter told the class that they would focus on
“upgrading vocabulary,” and specifically on ‘being’ verbs (i.e., is, am, are, was, were, be,
being, been). As part of the Writing Lab curriculum, Mrs. Porter handed out a sheet
titled, “Strengthening sentences: Lesson #1: Being verbs.” The document lists a short
definition of “being verbs” and “action verbs” and a few strategies and examples for how
to “eliminate ‘being’ verbs in your writing.” These elimination strategies included
replacing ‘being’vverbs with action verbs to “provide more information,” “to clarify

meaning,” and to “eliminate the monotonous repetition of being verbs.”

 

'1 The four areas measured in the state mandated writing assessments were content,
mechanics, organization, and style. These four areas were presented to the students
during these writing lab sessions to be important to those grading the state assessments in
their junior years. The state assessments were rarely explicitly discussed in Mrs.
Oakley’s ninth grade classroom. The only times that I heard anyone mention the state
assessments were just a few times during these writing lab sessions.

140

From this writing session early in the year up until the last writing session in
April, the students were reminded to focus their attention on their use of ‘being’ verbs.
They circled and counted all ‘being’ verbs in their drafts, as well as the drafts of their
peers when editing, making sure to stay under the number of ‘being’ verbs Mrs. Porter
established. After having circled the ‘being’ verbs, they substituted words that were
more “precise” or “specific” and/or showed movement. Mrs. Porter and Mrs. Oakley
modeled the type of substituting that was expected of students by giving examples of this
kind of “variation” in their language. After the teachers’ presentation for substituting
‘being’ verbs, Mrs. Porter did inform the students that it may not always be appropriate to
fully eliminate all ‘being’ verbs; however, changing them, she reminds them, makes you
“sound more sophisticated.”

The emphasis on few to no ‘being’ verbs was one of the important and explicit
rules that became central to writing in the formal writing practice, as illustrated in the
following set of fieldnotes.

It was nearing the end of the class period and students were reading individually

at their seats. Marcus looks up from his book, smiling, and asks me “why do they

teach you the ‘being’ verbs if they tell you later that you are not supposed to use
them.” After a response from Mrs. Oakley about how difficult it would be to not
use them in your speech, I ask Marcus:
David: Is this the first year that you were told to try not to—
Marcus: Yeah, I just don’t understand why they tell us now, when
we have learned [to write ‘being’ verbs] all along.
David: Flow many being verbs did you use in your letters? (As part
of the Novel Buddies assignment, students wrote letters

back and forth to one another about the book they were
reading together.)

14]

Marcus: I used a million

James: I just wrote it.

Marcus: I don’t pay attention unless I’m writing a final copy, I don’t

pay attention.

Marcus wanted to know why “they” enforce this rule now when they could have just told
them from the beginning not to use ‘being’ verbs in their writing. Why this is the first
time in their writing careers that they have explored the possibilities of using more active
verbs in place of ‘being’ verbs is a reasonable question. It might be the case that “they”
(e. g., English teachers or classroom teachers) have never before been so explicit about
this particular writing strategy. It might also be the nature of Marcus’ and the students’
understanding of the lessons. For Marcus, eliminating ‘being’ verbs seems to be more of
a “rule” enforced by English teachers and those distanced from he and the students than a
flexible strategy for creating diverse sentence patterns and constructions.

With a bit of questioning on my part, Marcus and James discussed the way in
which their use of ‘being’ verbs may differ depending on the text. For many of the
students, eliminating ‘being’ verbs became a rule enforced from outside of the classroom
by the English teachers grading the essays (e. g., “How many can we use?”), not
something that was going to change the quality of their writing, or something that
depended on the audience and/or purpose of the text. When writing reflective essays of
what they learned in Writing Lab and what they still have to improve, students cited .
‘being’ verbs as an area of improvement. Cadence writes, “I still struggle with being
verbs, and I think I always will.” From the beginning of class to the end, students
understood that they were to eliminate as many ‘being’ verbs from their writing as

possible, even if as James writes in his reflection, “it just takes me a while to think of the

possible substitutions for the being verbs.”

142

Rubrics and Outlines: Regulating Conventions in the Writing Lab

The second pattern that was important for the construction of writing in the
Writing Lab, and maintaining the official practices of the classroom, was that the students
were exposed to and held responsible for conforming to the conventions for expository
and persuasive writing. These conventions (i.e., one sentence thesis statements, using
quotes for evidence, the introduction-detail-detail-detail-conclusion essay genre) were
strictly regulated by the formulaic guidelines for each essay, which conveyed the
appropriate way of writing the essay. The two most common essays that students wrote
as part of Writing Lab were expository and persuasive essays, each with their own
standardized formula for composing it. For the expository essay (see Figure 15), students
were to follow the five-paragraph essay structure, down to the individual paragraph
sentences (e. g., topic sentence, first example, second example, etc.). Many students
jotted notes down on the outline for each section before writing their draft. One way that
the students learned and reinforced the structure of these essay formats were with their
peer editing. The students checked of “yes” or “no” for questions about the other
student’s essay. Of particular importance were how well the student followed the
paragraph and essay structure, reduced their use of ‘being’ verbs, and whether the student
included enough sentences and details in each paragraph. Similar to the expository essay,
the persuasive essay outline consisted of three to four paragraphs, leading the student into
introducing the topic, acknowledging the oppositional view, providing support for the
author’s view by including prior knowledge and two quotes from the article given to

them, and finally, restating the position and ending with a “creative idea.”

143

Figure 15. Outline Students used for Expository Essays Written in Writing Lab

 

 

Outline for Essay

Topic:
1. Intro Paragraph IV. Body Paragraph Three
A. Two to three opening sentences A. Topic Sentence
B. Thesis Statement B. First example
Detail
II. Body Paragraph One C. Second example
Detail
A. Topic Sentence D. Third example
B. First example Detail
Detail E. Concluding Sentence
C. Second example
Detail V. Concluding Paragraph
D. Third example
Detail A. Re-wording of thesis

E. Concluding Sentence
B. Final Comments

HI. Body Paragraph Two

A. Topic Sentence

B. First example

Detail

C. Second example
.Detail

D. Third example
Detail

E. Concluding Sentence

 

The assessment of the Writing Lab texts strictly regulated the process and
structure of the essays. Students’ final assessment consisted of completion of all five
parts of the writing process (i.e., outline of essay, two rough drafts, self editing, peer
editing, and final copy). In addition, successfully writing the expository and persuasive
texts involved adopting and following the structure of the essay outline, and making sure

that all the parts were included (e. g., two quotes, topic sentences, correctly placed thesis,

144

 

etc.). Therefore, students were evaluated on how well their essays aligned with the
conventions of the genre that were established and given to the students, more so than the
content and articulation of their ideas.

The Writing Lab practice was like no other practice in the classroom. It was
regulated and institutionalized from outside the classroom in the way that it was set apart
from the day-to-day events and by the formal evaluation with multiple external graders.
As a result of this writing being positioned as an institutionally privileged practice, the
writing that the students engaged in during the Writing Lab sessions was important to the
construction of writing in the classroom. Messages about what it meant to write formally
and “officially” were embedded in students’ comments about the importance of needing

to “work on” being verbs, as well as the rigid formulaic outlines that textual production

required.

Personal Writing

While the formal English curriculum emphasized expository and persuasive
writing, in addition to writing/production in response to the official texts, Mrs. Oakley
made space in the curriculum for diverse textual events that focused on issues central to
their experiences and lives. Early in the year, the activities were meant to introduce the
students to each other through creating and sharing a variety of autobiographical texts.
As the year progressed, she engaged the students in writing poetry, personal scrapbooks,
interviews and biographies of family members, writing about their beliefs and
experiences on certain issues they would read about (e. g., adoption or abuse, which were
topics important to Bean Trees), drawing their childhood neighborhoods, and writing

their “3 year letter” (a letter written to themselves that Mrs. Oakley mails to them for

145

their high school graduation). Writing in Mrs. Oakley’s class, in addition to the
expository writing mentioned above, included the production of personally motivated
texts about memories and reflections of childhood, family and friends, and things gained

and lost.

Mrs. Oakley ’s Poetry: An Introduction to Being an Author

Writing and producing texts that captured moments in time and that drew from
personal experience became a common practice in the classroom. One way that this
practice became valued in the classroom was through Mrs. Oakley modeling herself as a
writer and poet and sharing her poetry with the class. Poetry and other forms of texts
were important ways of capturing moments and telling stories, and this point came to the
forefront during a class period when the class read and discussed a poem that Mrs.
Oakley had written.

The students were sitting at their desks and Mrs. Oakley asked them to grab the

poem that she had handed out to them. Mrs. Oakley told the class that this is a

poem that she had written, and Cadence asks to confirm, “You wrote this?” Mrs.

Oakley tells the class whom the poem is about, and several students recognized

the name, some started telling stories of the boy who was a few years older. The

boy committed suicide almost three years before, and she wrote the poem after
having the boy in her 7Lh grade class, and after attending and reflecting upon the
boy’s funeral. The following is an excerpt of the poem.

Ahd he wrote poems

That relatives read

At his memorial service.
Poems about being on his own

146

With no parents to tell him what to do.
Poems about windows

And touching things through the glass
Beyond the glass

And how that contact with the strawberries,
Like the summer rain,

Made him smile,

Remembering how the water tumbled off
The side of the berry,

Ripe for his lips.

Poems about just being there

Listening to good ole day stories at family reunions
Or listening to the Vietnam stories

From the guy in the park

With the metal plate in his head.

Poems that just

Gave thanks

For a dad that was always there, always
Generous with his advice, his time.

Mrs. Oakley mentioned to the class that during the funeral the parents had

displayed many of the poems that the boy had written for her 7th grade class, a

year before his death. The parents told her that they were grateful for having his

poetry to remember him.

The reading and discussion of this poem was crucial for the students in revealing the

impact that texts can have as both a powerful tool to capture a moment in time with

powerful and beautiful language. The poems were a way for her to secure this tragic

moment in time and share her thoughts and reflections with others. Additionally, the

boy’s poems displayed at the funeral represented the way in which students could be

“authors,” writing “real” texts that have an impact on other people, compared to texts that

are solely for school assignments, that are often chucked in the trash after receiving a

grade. The poems that the boy wrote as part of Mrs. Oakley’s class became one way for

his parents and others to remember him. This message of the role of poetry and other

147

texts was central to this literacy event, and continued to be important for students as they

wrote their own poetry in the following weeks.

Students as Poets/Authors/Designers

Armed with a packet of poems they had read and analyzed as part of the class’
poetry study, the students had the opportunity of creating their own powerful poem,
capturing a moment or story of personal experience or reflection. With the task of
writing a poem 30 lines or more about either some kind of loss they have experienced, or
related to a theme or topic of one of the poems they have read in class, many students
wrote about life changing events, moments with siblings, and reflections on loss, love,
and family. Writing about a powerful incident that changed her life, Skye (who struggled
to turn in many of the assignments during the year) managed to write a poem that
captured the sounds and feeling of her last moments with her Grandmother (see Figure
16). Marcus captured the loss and desire to reclaim his sister’s friendship (see Figure
17).

Figure 16. Skye’s Poem Dedicated to Her Grandmother

 

 

February 28th
By: Skye

February 28‘“, 2000 I lost a dear friend

Hoses in her nose and side

Hospital room dark and damp

Only sounds from the respirator echoed throughout the room
Her chest rose slowly and collapsed with every exhale

I held her hand and desperately tried to remember the good times
Christmas day, only smiles

No one knew what lay down on the road ahead

Junie B. Jones she once read to me

As she sipped from her satiny red wine

Everyday I saw her, so healthy so strong

Her pearly white smile lit up the room

 

148

 

 

 

Aging was unknown to her

Her eyes still young ,

Skin had just begun to wrinkle, in the most beautiful way

She kept the family as one

She was the strong one

And there I sat watching her take her final breaths

In so much pain

Trying to hold on

Her fingers grew limp with every struggling breath she took

My heart grew weak as silent tears rolled down my stained cheeks
Her always-warm skin was now cold and clammy

Color slowly faded from her face '

Her eyes remained shut

I could only imagine the tired grey look that had befallen them

As she laid there silent slowly losing her battle, he made the decision
The doctor returned to the room, the family talked in whispers, as not
to let us children over hear

I knew she would not suffer anymore, as they the shut the respirator
off

The room was deathly quiet

Only the sounds of carts going by the medications for the patients who
still had a chance

Her chest rose one last time and fell

Her hand let go

Silent tears now sobs

Six months to a year cut down to nine days

We sat silent, watching her peaceful body

One by one we kissed her goodbye and walked away

A strong independent woman had lost her life

A piece of me was gone

February 28‘“, 2000

I lost a dear friend

I dedicate this poem to my grandmother who died of cancer on February 28th, 2000. She
meant a lot to me and I will never forget her. She was truly my dearest friend. So in
Loving Memory of my Grandmother.

 

149

 

figure 17. Marcus’ Poem about His Sister

 

“A Sister is a friend provided by nature.”

-Legouve Pere

Big Sis
By: Marcus

It’s quiet now, ‘
But quiet isn’t always a good thing.
It seems everything around me is leaving,
Just like you did last summer.
I hate to say it but I actually feel that I really miss you.
When I was little I hated to even be near you,
Now I wish I could talk to you.
I find it amazing what distance can do to siblings.
I was counting the days until you left,
Now I am counting the days until you comeback.

In elementary school you constantly put me down,

Either I was too fat, too slow, or too stupid to be your brother.

I remember I would wish for years that I could defend myself against you,
Eventually that day would come.

Until then I would have to try to fight back,

I always lost.

I remember how dad would defend me,

Even when I started it.

Now I feel how you felt,

It’s the same exact scenario with Chris.

The day had finally came,

I had no idea about what was going to happen.
The lawn had just been cut.

I walked into the office,

We mixed words,

But nothing physical.

I walked away,

You came after me.

The can of pop was poured over my head,

I went ballistic.

We fought,

You gave me a scar,

I won the fight.

To this day I am deeply sorry for what I had done.
I thought that I was getting revenge,

Now I turn there is no such thing as revenge.

I am truly sorry,

I miss you,

I hope I have not lost you.

 

 

 

 

150

In many instances, the personal texts became important in the lives of the students
outside of the classroom. Marcus’ mother heard about the poem and it sparked a
conversation with him about the relationship between he and his sister. In the dedication
to her poem, Ella mentions one of her friends who helped her find the courage “to write
the poem and share it with others”. Students pleaded for Mrs. Oakley to hand back the
Turning Points scrapbook so they could show their parents and friends. The nature of
these practices encouraged students to take the text seriously, to make it personal (i.e.,
writing about a life altering incident), and in many cases, to share their writing with
others. In a sense, when engaged in these literacy practices, they truly became authors of
authentic texts, as did the boy who wrote poetry that family members and guests at the
funeral read in Mrs. Oakley’s poem.

One of the purposes of writing these personal texts, unlike the expository texts
above, was for the students to find them valuable outside of the classroom. In fact, the 3-
year letter was never to be read by anyone but the students themselves. Mrs. Oakley
promised the students that she would not read it, and would just look at it to make sure it
was a letter that met the requirements of the assignment to give credit. This letter was a
text that was truly intended to be meaningful for the students outside of the borders of the
9‘h grade classroom.

When creating their personal Turning Points scrapbook, Mrs. Oakley told the
class that creating it was more for them than it is for her, emphasizing the importance of
seeing the text as something that they could keep for personal use. The scrapbook that
the students created were eight page booklets that focused on eight turning points, or

memorable events in which they learned something important about themselves, other

151

people, or the world. On each of the eight pages of the booklet were written descriptions
of the experience and a discussion of the lessons they learned as a result of the
experience. Students combined several resources, including clip art from the computer,
their own drawing, photos, and construction paper in order to personalize and represent
their turning point. The scrapbooks provided a space for students to record important
events in their lives, and do so in a multimodal form. Representative of the students’
scrapbooks is Ella’s scrapbook (see Figure 18). On multicolored paper, with large letters
at the top that rose from the page, and a handmade cloth binding, Ella’s

Figure 18. One of Ella’s “Turning Points”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

é Luigi g- 3%: ~ l
Eat-ig-Eiw ..
. a a _»' §—'.,§ 13;, .: E
‘ 33:31:; €§§'L§, 353g " i350" ~ ‘
n? = ggéé '5 95: E 1!: ’
g»? 2" ggrafliifi ”'1 Li.
.: E 512ng;, . ‘
._‘ _. E‘E‘L ~§ . -_.l‘ ‘_
' .1." i in; . -
335 . .4 -_ 3 ~
Ni: i=3 a 3:; E. '2
_ .égg . 3 L g 22‘ g
iiigg.‘ .-.'5
_ Ergeg.i1§ ‘~ ”(f
. .50.: aiag ... ' ; ‘>
E? .2154 P .3 . E ‘j. ; 0E
‘. “m 3 'z‘ '- '1' l. 3
D E Eii 5" 3 Jig .4 i5:
.‘i»‘1§ t? 0,.- .g'
. 5.35%“; z» --ir..i-.-a,i
in? iiiul a . EH ..sg
P gt £53m"; E 1 ~35“; ~ ”3..
. E-ei- .0333 she . “L ‘ 5
I

 

152

Figure 18 continued.

 

Scrapbook displayed many personal design decisions that she made when creating this
scrapbook, beyond those that she chose to write about as turning points. The “Turning
Point” illustrated in Figure 18 is about Ella’s opportunity to participate in a student
exchange program.

One aspect of the personal writing and producing practice that differed from the
expository texts and responses to literature practices was that the personal writing texts
were more public than those other texts of the classroom. Sharing these personal texts
with others in the class were part of the practice, at times even having students write
comments about each other’s texts. For the Turning Points scrapbooks, each text was
responded to at least three times by another student in the class. During the sharing of

these texts, students were actively seeking out their peers in order to “rea ” their

153

scrapbooks (Anthony called out from the front of the room, “Marcus, 1 want to read your
scrapbook”). As can be seen in the three students who responded to Ella’s scrapbook
(see Figure 19), students responded to the personal experiences (e. g., “cool that you got
to spend time with that [exchange] student”), as well as design decisions (e. g., “you had
fun with the felt letters; you put a lot of time into this, I can tell”). Considering that Mrs.
Oakley did not focus the class’ attention on the “grammar” of visual and spatial
representation, students still pointed out the way that the author’s decisions influenced
their “reading” of the texts.

The personal writing practices that students designed were an expansion on the
official curriculum, privileging students’ experiences and literacies. Within these
classroom literacy practices students were authors, creating texts that became important
in their personal lives (e.g., facilitating discussions with family and friends, kept for the

future), and sharing these texts with classmates, family and friends.

154

Figure 19. Peer Comments for Ella’s “Turning Point” Text

VI.

. ~we bojh wot! 9500*.mqril‘<i-

- Thai 5+0“ 0600+ you- 3ra.v~dpm.cis-_u 5.003.014; we‘d
wait] gee you WM 100* Martiamedfarcl

" (or some reason, I imaghfxihaf yOu..-ilq;l.qlt-1slys.
13"“... .90 “*9 -.snme boar... 330m fégbj'ut on. 4

"I love :‘l‘efttl‘i Wit": and .Q.r.?5.+1_+__gagrs

~ This yen, Meiji-art yoogoi +0 spend :liamriirh

“Mi. 5* 001.903.: -Mve-d.0.)09.s.._wqmcel-:fq have Oriel

.« had (00-03.21.444 4.0812 Hers

$404 00.404 +4-9. 0-0000,. leek
, ell. L_‘fldC€q,4 Zoe r on~tt~¢flou+2

(pod watt int/«wzwnditpv'fl

.MJQ ms} {00. . __
w puppbt IS adomdg. $000 $9 (.th Y

Lair 100ch 150260, (notice, and/(an
+3]; (14) W e/OJOF hm. ,0» 1*

A

@0030 5mm. 1+3 «003 mm
«[30: Lazar; 1,1Q“é LQ‘C“ W\ . :- Qh‘) Q86
«£0009 30W moot.

 

155

Summary

In negotiating the writing and textual production practices of the classroom, Mrs.
Oakley and the students expanded what they understood as the narrow possibilities for
formal writing which are often privileged in English classrooms (e. g., 5 paragraph
expository essays). Mrs. Oakley provided the students opportunities to integrate
marginalized ways of representation, such as vernacular texts (e. g., letters, scrapbooks)
and visual and spatial modes of representations. Mrs. Oakley also expanded the purposes
of writing by creating spaces for students to become authors and designers of texts that
become part of their personal lives (e. g., letters to themselves not to be read by anyone,
scrapbooks that were more for them than Mrs. Oakley). Amidst these possible points of
expansion in the classroom, the students were involved in a formal writing seminar that
included rigid guidelines regulated by external teachers and reviewers. Students went
through the motions, counting and substituting ‘being’ verbs and formulating written
texts to be aligned with the assignment guidelines. Through these three writing and
textual production practices, Mrs. Oakley and the students work within and through the
pressures for stability and the pressures for change as they utilize multiple modes of

representations and imagine the purposes for textual production in the 21St century.

156

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This ethnographic case study examines the negotiation of literacies as they were
constructed within one ninth-grade introductory English classroom, with the intent of
understanding how the practices of English become shaped, and understanding the role of
students’ literacy practices in the class constructions of literacy. This study provides
insights into what became the valued literacy practices in the classroom, the influences
and processes at play in the construction of literacies, as well as the role the teacher and
students play in this negotiation process.

In this final chapter, I will highlight the texts and practices that were important to
engaging in the class, and weave together the processes and influences related to how the
teacher and students came to engage with the practices of the classroom. Finally, I will
suggest implications that the findings might have for teacher education and classroom

practice.

English Texts and Practices in “New Times”

Luke (2004) suggests that the English education field must consider how it has
“responded to realities of new and culturally diverse student populations, new texts and
communications media, changing job markets and. life pathways?” (p. 85). As we see in
Mrs. Oakley’s 9th grade English class, the content of English is in the midst of change.
The content reflects a mixture of traditional and classical literature (e. g., The Old Man
and the Sea) with multicultural, contemporary and non-traditional print texts (e. g., Bean
Trees, films, comics). The products that the students created were a mixture of formal

essays, following strictly regulated outlines, as well as pieces that were combinations of

157

visual and print texts, reflecting a variety of less formal genres (e. g., story reductions,
scrapbooks).

In the reading of texts, the participants’ constructions of reading practices largely
included reading, recalling, and interpreting print-based literature. However, reading
other genres and forms of texts, and for other purposes (e. g., autobiographies, magazines,
films, music), was not understood as really counting as “reading” or “English” in the way
that they were being constructed in Mrs. Oakley’s English classroom. The majority of
the time in class, and the greatest portion of the assessments and students’ grades
centered around reading practices related to the comprehension, recalling of details, and
interpretation of print-based fictional literature. With that said, students were also asked
to experience out-of—school events with multimodal characteristics for extra credit (e. g.,
multicultural events), and explore various philosophically and socially important topics
that were only indirectly connected to the recalling and interpretation of literature.
Indeed, the constructions of English in this introductory course reflect the changing
nature of literacy and of English within the contexts of multicultural and technological
change.

The work in which Mrs. Oakley and the students engaged compels us to not only
consider the content of English during these changing times, but the purposes of English
in the 21st century. Scholes (1998) suggests that:

Knowledge of English literary history is simply not the password to managerial

and professional positions that it may once have been. . .What this society wants of

those who graduate from its schools and colleges with degrees in humanities. . .are

158

at worst docile and grammatical competence, at best, reliability and a high level

of textual skills (p. 19).
For Mrs. Oakley and the students, the study of literature was constructed to be that which
provided the students with a form of cultural literacy that would help them be more
“sophisticated,” as well as knowledgeable about certain “touchstones” for future English
courses. If we take Scholes’ argument seriously, a reconstruction of English is necessary
to provide opportunities for students to gain the textual skills, in a variety of forms
needed to be successful in the workplace. For the students in Mrs. Oakley’s class this
would entail more of a focus on the texts and media that they consumed or produced in
all aspects of their lives. Therefore, in addition to “reading” a variety of forms of texts
(e. g., comics, newsprint), they would also engage in an analysis of the textual features
and their reading of them. Similarly, in addition to alternative assignments that allow for
multimodal possibilities (e.g., scrapbooks, artistic story reductions), the teacher and
students might also engage in a discussion of the aspects of texts and the possibilities that
certain textual forms offer and fail to provide. While Mrs. Oakley and the students did
engage with a variety of texts, they did not fully explore the form of these texts in ways
that would allow students the ability to be more adept multimodal consumers and
producers. This lack of explicit discussion around the textual form of these non-
traditional texts contributed to the de-privileged status of textual forms in the classroom,
when compared to the textual interpretation that Mrs. Oakley andthe students engaged in
when studying the literature texts.

For the students in this study, with their multiple texts and contexts for literacy,

critical exploration of the affordances and constraints of textual forms will continue to

159

become an essential skill in the ever increasing information—based society. In their
Position Statement on Adolescent Literacy, Moore, Bean, Birdyshaw, and Rycik’s (1999)
quote deserves repeating from earlier in the dissertation. They argued that:
Adolescents entering the adult world in the 21St century will read and write more
than at any other time in human history. They will need advanced levels of
literacy to perform their jobs, run their households, act as citizens, and conduct
their personal lives. They will need literacy to cope with the flood of information
they will find everywhere they turn. They will need literacy to feed their
imaginations so they can create the world of the fiiture (p. 99).
These students will need an awareness of literacy that extends beyond the study of
literature and formal essay writing. Students will need to learn to be proficient with
consuming and producing texts in a variety of media and for a variety of purposes.
Lankshear and Knobel (2003) suggest that “knowledge work” is the “highest order of
productive activity,” as texts and representational forms change, and that the “most potent
and valued forms of literacy will be—and in the foreseeable future will continue to be—
those that tend toward the highest order of manipulation of symbols to generate the ‘data,
words, oral and visual representations’ (p. 55). Therefore, those literacies that belong to
the “non-material realm,” which Marcus and other students were beginning to gain skills
and knowledge with by engaging in these literacies on their own outside of school (e. g.,
using the Internet as a search tool; consumption and manipulation of video game texts),
are the types of literacies which will be needed to participate in the work and public

sphere. As a result of the traditionally focused construction of literacy, and the lack of

160

attention on the form of texts, attention to these literacies related to the ICTs were non-
existent in the privileged English texts and practices of the classroom.

When questioning the content and the purposes of English, Scholes (1998) further
argues that what should be pursued is for students to be “imbued with critical skills and
values,” and be “antagonistic” to those who are in privileged positions in society (e. g., the
marketplace, legislative bodies) (p. 19). While some of the discussions and topics that
the students and Mrs. Oakley pursued in the class focused on critical explorations of
contemporary issues (e. g., discussion of whether or not to continue in the war in Iraq),
explicit discussions around issues of textual power and privilege of texts were not part of
the activity of the classroom. Considering the texts with which students already engage,
and the possible texts they will likely engage with in the future, it is important that a
reconstruction of English include a critical awareness of the interrelatedness of language

and literacy to issues of power and privilege (Fairclough, 1995; Morrell, 2002).

Negotiating Boundaries of Literacy and English

The boundaries between fiction and nonfiction, between literature and

nonliterature and so forth are not laid up in heaven. Every specific situation is

historical. And the growth of literature is not merely development and change

within the fixed boundaries of any given definition; the boundaries themselves are

changing (Bakhtin, 1981b, p. 33).

Bakhtin’s insights into the development of language and literature, and the
understanding that the boundaries are historically formed and are indeed changing, is

helpful in understanding the changing state of English, as well as the negotiation of

161

'nllfi.‘

L92:

. . . I.[..|ILPn.-I,'h\l .

 

1 1

.fl.‘

literacies and of English in the classroom. Bakhtin’s discussion of the pressures towards
“convention and normativity, and pressures of difference and change” (Fairclough, 2000,
p. 174) offer a way of viewing the constant negotiation of the boundaries within the
English classroom. In this way, Mrs. Oakley and the students engaged in the expansion
and maintenance of the boundaries of what counted as texts, reading and writing, as they
became actors in the processes of dialogically constructing the practices of the English
classroom.

Utilizing this framework, the findings from this study point to two important
aspects of the integration process that broadens our understanding of the relationship
between students’ literacies they engage with in their everyday lives and those that
schools promote. First, the teacher (and the students) were involved in the processes of
expanding as well as maintaining the official practices of the'classroom. The practices
were not always traditional or expansive; students’ practices were recognized at times,
and there were other moments in the class when the students’ familiar practices were
unsanctioned in the classroom. Second, the students contributed to the integration of
students’ literacies in ways that are often overlooked in the literature. The students often
pushed their texts and practices into the space of the official practices. These two aspects
of the integration process provides evidence that the “bridging” of in-school and out-of-
school texts and practices is a complex process. They also suggest that the relationship
between in-school practices and out-of-school practices are not “fixed”; rather, they are
fluid and contested, as a Bakhtinian perspective might suggest. In the next two sections, I

elaborate on these two characteristics of the integration process, providing insight into

how they might broaden our understanding of in-school and out-of-school literacies.

162

Processes of Maintaining and Expanding

Abundant in the literature related to bridging students’ literacies with academic
practices is the dichotomy between teachers who bridge students’ literacies to classroom
practice, and those teachers who do not. Studies in the field tend to polarize teachers into
either doing “positive” things to value, acknowledge, and connect students’ literacies to
the practices of the classroom, or doing “negative” things that devalue students’ practices
and reproduce the power structures within schools. Mrs. Oakley and the students
engaged in a variety of processes reflective of the “positive” and “negative” aspects
above that shaped the constructions of English in the classroom. These processes
included instances when the official practices were ignored, challenged, and at times
changed to reflect a different practice or a broader perspective of literacy. There were
processes as well that led to maintaining the official and traditional texts and practices of
the classroom. The negotiation of texts and practices involved processes that privileged
and strictly regulated certain forms of texts over others, as well as processes that led to
the acknowledgement and integration of a wide variety of practices as counting as a
valuable form of literacy (e. g.., various genres of writing, multimodal representations of
texts).

Expanding the practices of the official curriculum was apparent from the way that
Mrs. Oakley designed the course. Mrs. Oakley believed that English involved a range of
different texts and writing practices, and she designed the class to fit that philosophy. In
several instances she engaged the students in a variety of texts that were different in
genre and form than the canonical texts that were traditionally part of the English

curriculum (e. g., comic strips, movies, multimodal experiences). Mrs. Oakley excluded

163

certain texts of the official curriculum (e. g., not fully reading Romeo & Juliet and The
Odyssey) to include this wide variety of texts.

Mrs. Oakley also created opportunities where she presented the curriculum as
flexible and adaptive to the everyday activity of the classroom, as well as to the needs,
interests, and voices of the students. We see instances of Mrs. Oakley providing students
time to share their experiences with certain texts to determine if she would include the
text for the next year. We also see this flexible curriculum being formed in the moments
when, after students mention how many of the texts of the curriculum are depressing, she
mentions that she will try to fit a new book into the curriculum, F army in Farsi: A
Memoir of Growing Up Iranian in America.

Providing opportunities for students to utilize unsanctioned texts and practices in
the classroom led to the expansion of the boundaries of the valued practices of the
classroom. The digressions from the official texts, or “springboarding” discussions,
provided opportunities for students to explore issues remotely connected to the official
texts, further establishing the idea that these discussions are valuable and worthy of class
time. These instances of springboarding either led to discussions of official texts, or at
other times, stood on their own. During these springboarding practices, Mrs. Oakley
often made intertextual links to other normally unsanctioned texts (e. g., television shows,
movies, cartoons). At times, these unsanctioned texts were utilized solely as a scaffold to
the official texts; in other situations (usually when Mrs. Oakley was offering the text,
rather than when the students were offering) these normally unsanctioned texts became

privileged texts of the classroom.

164

Amidst these processes of expansion in the classroom, Mrs. Oakley and the
students maintained traditional forms of texts and practices. However, in order to fully
understand the complexities of the negotiation process, one must fully view the teacher
and students as being involved in processes that are intimately connected to influences
from outside the classroom. Mrs. Oakley and the students engaged in productive
processes and were influencedby a variety of pressures (e.g., systemic regulations,
constructions of privileged reading, formal writing practices), as they negotiated what
counted as texts, and as reading and writing practices. Often these processes included
either the teacher or the students providing statements that further reinforced the
privileging of certain texts, which was highlighted'in the Mark Twain quote that appeared
at the top of the summer reading list: “The man who does not read good books has no
advantage over the man who can’t read them.” These beliefs and values, which were
related to the traditional forms of texts, were integral to the construction of practices in
the classroom (Bloome, Carter, Christian, Otto, & Shuart-Faris, 2005). Reading and
writing were not independent from the beliefs and values that surrounded certain
practices, further reinforcing the importance of the ideological model of literacy in
classroom contexts (Street, 1993, 2001).

Two common processes that led to maintaining the boundaries of official texts
and practices were a) developing “touchstones,” and b) defining the curriculum as a static
formation, with rigid boundaries, regulated from outside the classroom walls. These two
processes, which contributed to the maintaining of official practices, were deeply
connected to pressures that were integral to contexts that encompassed more than that of

just the 9th grade English class. Mrs. Oakley’s involvement with the Advanced

165

Placement Literature course at the high school provided a backdrop for the kinds of
privileged practices (i.e., “deep” literary analysis, independent analysis of text) that she
aspired for all students. This course set the standard for those students “who challenged
themselves,” and who were wishing to go on to college. For Mrs. Oakley, this course
was to be taken by those at the highest level of literature studies, and was a privileged
course in the school. For Mrs. Oakley to prepare students for this privileged course,
students were to need to learn to think, read, and write like a certain type of English
student. This pressure was likely part of her recognized importance in developing
“touchstones” for students, as well as for stressing the importance of English reading
practices, including independent reading of large amounts of text and literary analysis.

An additional pressure that influenced the maintenance of the boundaries of
official practices was the influence of decisions made by the English department and the
presence of local and state standards. These pressures made their way into the classroom
through the Writing Lab, which the students quickly learned was about writing formal
essays. They also were important in determining the official curriculum, and the kinds of
reading that would be valued and acknowledged. Through these processes, we further
see the variety of pressures for maintaining the official practices of literacy and of
English. In the end, we see Mrs. Oakley and the students shaping, and being shaped, by a
variety of pressures that influenced whether or not expansion or maintenance is
paramount.

This study offers insight into the complex negotiations of literacy and English,
while being cognizant of the tendency of research that is quick to characterize good and

poor teachers, and those that bridge and those that do not. What this complexity reveals

166

is that maintenance and expansion likely occur in all classrooms, with all groups of
teachers and students. This study illustrates that the bridging process is not one that
involves simply just learning about students’ literacies and then designing cuniculum that
is “appropriate” (as seen in much of the bridging literacies literature), but one that
involves the constant negotiation related to the shaping of what becomes official practices
of the classroom, as seen through maintaining and expanding the boundaries of what is

official.

Students as Participants in the Negotiation of Literacies

Many who have studied the integration of literacies in classrooms have theorized
the process as largely, and almost entirely, a teacher directed activity (Lee, 1997; Moll,
2000). The teacher has full responsibility, and full control of whether or not students’
literacies become integral to the classroom practices. A few studies reveal the role the
students play in this bridging process (e. g., Finders, 1997). What is important from the
current study is how the students’ texts and practices were instrumental in the shaping of
the texts and practices of the classroom. Similar to Camitta (1993) and Moje, Willis, &
Fassio (2001), the students’ resources helped shape the valued practices of the classroom,
positioning them as active members in the construction of literacies in the classroom.

While Mrs. Oakley established a classroom context that allowed for students to
write about their lives, sometimes even allowing students to utilize familiar literacy
practices, and to contribute and make meaning using normally unsanctioned texts, the
students often pushed their texts and practices into the classroom space. These resources
became important for the construction of practices, as the topics, texts, and practices

tended to become part of the classroom practice (i.e., recurring mention of certain

167

 

movies, music). At times, students would go to great lengths to include a text or practice
that would not normally be valued in the other English classrooms (e. g., Marcus, after
realizing that Mrs. Oakley missed his friend’s segment in the paper, repeatedly called
Mrs. Oakley’s and the class’ attention to the text, and claimed curricular space in the
classroom).

What we find when looking at the resources that students are including as part of
the expansion process is that the texts and resources they incorporate reflect the changing
nature of literacy that Kress (2003) and Lankshear and Knobel (2003) and Alverrnann
(2002a) describe (i.e., digital technologies). This expansion of these texts into the official
texts of the classroom allows for engagement that many argue are important in future
involvement in important literacy practices. Therefore, not only did the students include
their literacies into the classroom, but they often provided rich resources that become
opportunities for heterogeneous texts and the transformation of official practices
(Bakhtin, 1981a; Fairclough, 1995). When Marcus’ use of online dictionaries became an
integral part of one class period, it was used as a possible resource thereafter. At first
rejected by Mrs. Oakley as an unofficial practice, the use of online dictionaries became a
valuable resource for the students in the class and even Mrs. Oakley recognized the
advantages that the text offered. Therefore, it can be through the offering and integration
of these resources that change occurs and new practices are formed, and students’
resources are often the catalyst for such change. These findings suggest that students
play a role in pushing their literacies into classrooms, and carving out a space for their

literacies.

168

 

 

 

» hi I [L'.ID Ell.» Nth. Vb...- . “1’1

 

Despite these small openings of students’ voices and personal literacy practices
apparent during the school year, the valued literacy practices of the classroom were
largely sanctioned by the teacher and those institutional officials outsideof the classroom
(e. g., English departments, state boards of education, etc.). The negotiation of literacies
is not a neutral process between the teacher and students, independent of those outside
pressures (institutional officials, educational discourses); rather, the negotiation of
literacies is influenced and interconnected with these pressures and constraints. Those
researchers in critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 2000; Gee, 1996) have theoretically
and empirically begun to show the ideological saturation and formation of social
contexts, and this study contributes to these, as it illustrates the complexities of the

prcoesses and practices of the negotiation literacies with adolescents.

Looking Ahead: Implications for English and Literacy Teaching and Practice

The insights gained from the study of the negotiation of literacies in Mrs.
Oakley’s 9th grade English class have implications for how we might support pre-service
and in-service teachers, as well as educate adolescents in English classrooms.

The major findings in this study suggest that we must fully understand the
complexity of the processes related to shaping the literacies of the classroom. Integral to
this process are the roles that the teacher and students each play in shaping what counts as
English. Therefore, it is important for pre-service and in-service teachers to understand
their important role in contributing to the construction of the texts and practices of the
classroom, and the possible affordances and constraints of these boundaries with different
students. Teaching should be seen as a political act, where frequent decisions are made

that recognize certain students as “readers” or “non-readers.”

169

 

Additionally, during this time of cultural and technological change, we see the
significant need for teachers to be aware of the changing contexts of literacies. Along
with this understanding comes an appreciation of the various “new literacies” and the
importance they have in the all aspects of students’ lives in the 21St century (Alvermann,
2002b; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). Mrs. Oakley’s awareness of the variety of texts in
students’ lives and the ways in which the students utilized them to make meaning in the
classroom led to an appreciation of these resources and flexibility in expanding the
official practices of the classroom.

The findings from this study also suggest that we must reconsider the preparation
of pre-service teachers and the professional development of in-service English teachers.
One of the significant reasons why the non-traditional print-based literacies received less
attention and privilege than those traditional texts and practices was due to the lack of a
focus on the multimodal and genre specific features of these texts. For English teachers
to fully address the multimodal characteristics of texts, the affordances and constraints
that different texts provide, teachers must be knowledgeable about these features of texts,
and have familiarity of how to teach for multimodality. Current research is involved in
developing a grammar for extending the ways in which we understand and talk about
multimodality (rather than just a grammar of literature texts) (Kress, 2000, 2003). As this
develops, it is important that educators be knowledgeable of the current developments
with the multimodality of texts, receiving instruction in these areas within English
teacher preparation programs and teacher professional development.

As literacy educators broaden their perspectives of literacy and English to include

students’ multiple literacies, it is important that the process of literacy negotiation be seen

170

as involving not just using students’ texts and practices as a scaffold to the valued texts
and practices of the classroom, but as possibilities for the expansion of the official texts
and practices. The integration of students’ multiple literacies, and the expansion of the
valued practices of the classroom, does not necessarily imply that we must dissolve or
remove the privileged “academic” practices of the English classroom. It is important to
note that literacies are not equal (Gee, 1996, 1999), which is a reason why critical r
awareness as part of an English curriculum is essential for students of the 21St century. i

However, simply reproducing the cannon, teaching the literacies of power, and

 

delegitimizing reading and writing practices that are different than the traditional fictional
text or 5 paragraph essay, does little to critique the power relations that exist. As Scholes
(1998) and Kress (2003) argue, it is important that we teach students ways of navigating
across a wide variety of texts, as well as ways of critically examining the power
relationships involved with different forms of texts and practices. Having some space for
expansion to occur in English classrooms, which are largely dominated by traditional and
canonical texts and formal essays, would broaden students’ repertoires and allow them to
become more proficient and more knowledgeable of the sorts of practices that are
important to them, as well as those practices important in the social and work speheres.
The insights and analyses from this study reveal the possibilities of examining this
process, and provide a deeper understanding of the ways in which students and teachers

will negotiate English and adolescent literacies in “New Times.”

171

APPENDICES

172

 

APPENDIX A: FOR COLORED GIRLS WHO HAVE CONSIDERED SUICIDE
WHEN THE RAINBOW IS ENUF

\Vithout any assistance or guidance from you

I have loved you assiduously for 8 months 2 wks St a day
I have been stood up four times

I’ve left 7 packages on yr doorstep

Forty poems 2 plants 8L 3 handmade notecards I left
Town so I cd send to you have been no help to me

On my job In
You call at 3:00 in the morning on weekdays '-
So I cd drive 27 ‘/2 miles cross the bay before I go to work
Charmin Charmin I
But you are of no assistance '
I want you to know

 

This waz an experiment

To see how selfish I cd be...

If I wa‘; capable of debasing my self for the love of anOther
IfI Cd stand not being wanted

When I wanted to be wanted

St I cannot '

so

with no further assistance 8L no guidance from you

I am endin this affair

This note is attached to a plant
I've been waterin since the day I met you
You may water it

Yr damn self

-ntozake Shange
from for colored girls who ha we considered suzcrde
when the rainbow 1s enuf

173

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Semi-structured interview with students conducted during the school year.

Out-of—school literacy practices

1. What kinds of things do you read when you are at not in school?
Prompts (to possibly ask to help them think of certain domains of life in which
reading might by used)

with your family?

for entertainment?

for information?

on the intemet?

for religious purposes?
for your future?

with friends?

when listening to music?
in enrichment programs/extra-cun’icular activities? *-
when shopping?

“I

 

2. What kinds of things do you write when you are at not in school?
Prompts (to possibly ask to help them think of certain domains of life in which
reading might by used)

with your family?

for entertainment?

for information?

on the intemet?

for religious purposes?
for future?

with friends?

when listening to music?
in enrichment programs?
when shopping?

3. What different sorts of media do you watch, listen to, or experience when you are
not at school?

what things do you watch on TV? how often?

what movies do you watch? how often?

what music do you listen to? how often?

what sites do you visit on the intemet? how often?

what activities do you do with a computer? (play games? build websites?
create movies? listen to music?)

174

Classroom literacy practices

. What kinds of things do you read when you are in Mrs. Oakley’s class?

Prompts (to possibly ask to help them think of certain domains of life in which
reading might by used)

that the teacher asked you to read/write/draw/listen/dramatize/discuss
that you chose to read/write/draw/listen/dramatize/discuss

for homework?

for group work? .

when you were supposed to be doing something else?

that is unrelated to the topic at hand? I.”

. Which texts do/did you enjoy? Dislike? Find difficult? Boring? Why?

. Which assignments do/did you enjoy? Dislike? Find difficult? Boring? Why?

 

. Which activities do/did you enjoy? Dislike? Find difficult? Boring? Why?

 

. If you could read anything in Mrs. Oakley’s classroom what would you read?

. What would you change about being in Mrs. Oakley’s class if you had the
opportunity to do so?

. What do you think Mrs. Oakley could do to help you with your learning to be a
better English student?

History with schooling
. What are your goals for your education?

. Who was your best teacher? Why?

. Who was your worst teacher? Why?

. What does literacy mean to you?

175

Semi-structured interviews with the teacher to be conducted at different times
during the school year.

(Possible questions that might arise after observing the classroom)

1.

2.

Why did you incorporate the texts that you did into the curriculum?
Why did you assign the particular assignments that you did?

What made you decide to choose to present the material in that [referring to an
observation] way?

What do you see as important for the students to leave your class knowing?

176

 

Demographic Information

 

 

1. Date:
2. Name
3. Age
4. Gender

 

5. Race/Ethnicity

 

6. Country of birth

 

7. Native language

 

8. Language spoken in the home? In community settings?

9. Are you a U.S. citizen? Yes No

 

a. If not, what is your status

10. What schools have you attended in the past?

 

 

11. Mother’s occupation:

 

12. Father’s occupation:

 

13. Do you have a computer in your home?

 

a. If yes, is it hooked up to the intemet? Yes No

b. If no, do you have access to one outside of school

177

l"

First Semi-structured Interview with Mrs. Oakley

Background
0 How many years have you been teaching, and at what schools?
0 You have mentioned research you have done in the past. Could you tell me about
that that work. What work do you do with the local writing project?
0 Could you tell me about the organization that you are part of where you discuss
cultural issues.

Goals and philosophy
0 What are your goals for your students?
0 What do you see as important that the students leave the school year with and
why?
How would you characterize your teaching philosophy?
What do you feel makes up a successful teacher?

Catching me up

0 Since I missed the first few weeks of the year, could you catch me up with some
of the highlights of things that have happened?

0 What texts have you read so far? Art? Movies? Music? What is your rationale for
starting with these texts?
What have been the types of assignments that you have given and why?
Any incidents that happened in class that would be helpful for me to know? (e. g.,
For example, the newspaper incident—student being suspended, did the class
discuss this at all?)

Requirements for her as a teacher
0 What are the requirements in place for you as a teacher related to the cuniculum,
to meeting state standards, and preparing students for the state assessments?
o How do you go about making sure these requirements are fulfilled?

178

 

Second Semi-Structured Interview with Mrs. Oakley

Please discuss your rationales for doing each of the following with students. What were
your goals and expectations? How do you think it went?

0 Books/short stories
0 The Old Man and the Sea
0 Selection of short stories
0 Bean Trees _
o At-Risk F-

0 Assignments

0 The Old Man and the Sea final project
Quizzes for Bean Trees and At-Risk
Interviews of family members
Extra credit—movie on Sudanese refugees
Two truth, one lie ,1 ,
Scariest memory
Scrapbooks of Bean Trees character
Scrapbooks of self
Writing lab assignments

 

00000000

0 Activities
0 Classroom creation of the Halloween story
0 Creation of the reading completion list
0 Class discussion of texts

179

APPENDIX C: DATA ANALYSIS CODES
Open Coding

What it means to read
0 Literary interpretation
0 Reading independently
0 Reading for pleasure
What it means to write
0 Following rules
0 Following conventions
0 Visual texts
0 Print texts

Negotiation
0 Students ask questions
' Off topic

' Challenge teacher
I Advances discussion
0 Complaining
o Expressing excitement
0 Teacher considers/Adapts
School texts '
Out of school texts
Teacher goals
Beliefs of Literacy
Technology
Video games
Students’ lives

180

Developed Categories and Codes

What is being Maintained and Expanded?

Texts
Official
Unofficial
Genre
Mode
Purpose
Topics
Official
Personal
Taboo
Writing
“looking smart” _
Aesthetics of writing
Important authors
Writing for improvement
Conventions
Grammar
Spelling
Essay structure
Resources
Prior knowledge
Unofficial text
Official text
Official practice
Unofficial Practice
Constructions
of the Reader
“Bookworm”
Non-reader
' Processes—Maintaining
“ Touchstones "
Stable Curriculum
Hierarchy of texts

Enforcing conventions

Processes—Expanding

Springboarding
Flexible curriculum
Student-Offering (text to class)

181

 

Teacher-Offering (text to class)
Resisting norms/rules
Unofiicial scafiolding text
Claiming space

Larger Context

State assessments
English department

AP class/Exam

The discipline of English

Official Practices—associated with the official curriculum, and traditional practices
of English curriculum

Teacher-led shared reading
Reading assignment
Responding to literature
Formal essay writing
Personal writing
Vocabulary study
Routines
Solitary reading
Discussion
Formal writing

 

182

APPENDIX D: NOVEL BUDDIES ASSIGNMENT SHEET

Novel ‘Buddies

 

Over the next week you will have the opportunity to read a novel with a "buddy"
in class. After you have selected a novel that appeals to both of you, create a
reading plan, which you will rewrd below.

 

Then, for each section you read, you will be Composing a personal letter to your
buddy. In that letter, you will disCuss your response to the novel. Focus on
sectiors that you found particularly fascinating, shocking, surprising,
enlightening, etc... Talk about characters: decisions they are making, turning
points in their lives, Why you think they do or say the things they do... Talk
about what you are learning about a particular time in history. Talk about
which characters you identify with, which ones are most like you and least like
you, how you might handle a situation in the book differently and why. Talk
about themes emerging as you read, what you think the author is trying to say
as a resutt of writing this book So many things to talk about as you read...

You will exchange letters with your buddy each day. It is your responsibility to
stiCk to the reading plan so that you are reading the same section of the book
each day/night. Respond to what your buddy tells you in his/her letter in your
next letter as you go along.

You will receive credit in class for each letter. Be sure that the letter is
grounded in the novel and that your letters are "alive" and fascinating for your
budchi to read!!!

Create a reading plan. You'll need to look at number of pages or chapters and
then divide by SIX to develop your schedule for reading.

183

APPENDIX E: CONSENT LETTERS
Student Assent
Dear Student:

You are invited to participate in a research project that will explore how students in Mrs.
Oakley’s class read and write in different parts of their lives, and how they learn to read
and write in school. As part of this research, I am trying to learn about the various ways
and for what reasons students read and write in different situations, especially in and out
of school.

r

I will spend 24 hours a week in Mrs. Oakley’s classroom, observing students, taking
notes, audio taping activities, and chatting with students whenever it is convenient for the
students and for Mrs. Oakley’s. If you choose to take part in this project I will be
watching for what types of things you read and write in class and how you talk about it
with Mrs. Oakley and your classmates. At times, I may ask to copy your schoolwork or
other things that you have read or written. In addition, I may ask to observe you in other E
situations where reading and writing might be involved. These may be any ‘
extracun'icular activities or clubs that you may'participate in. If you agree to be observed

in your extracurricular activities it would just be a few times over the course of the school

year, when convenient and comfortable for you. By watching you read and write in

different situations, and by chatting you about how you use reading and writing in

different aspects of your life, I will learn more about literacy learning in and out of

school.

 

The data that is obtained in this study, including any demographic information, will be
kept strictly confidential. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law. I will protect the identity of individual children, their families, and
their school districts. As part of collecting information about your reading and writing
activities in and out of school, I will be audio taping discussions that you may have with
your peers, with the teacher, and with myself. I will lock up the audiotapes and I will be
the only one who will listen to them. In reporting the project’s results, your name will
not be used. I will use a pseudonym to ensure strict confidentiality. After the completion
of the study all audiotapes will be erased and thrown away.

I do hope that you will allow me to learn about the many ways that your read and write in
and out of school. However, your participation in this study is completely voluntary.
Your participation or nonparticipation will not affect your grades or performance in the
classroom in any way. You are also free to withdraw permission from the study at any
time without penalty. You are free to refuse to answer any question at any point during
the project. If you are interested in the research results at the end of the project, then I’ll
be happy to provide you with this information.

If you would like further information or have any questions about the study, please
contact the investigator, David Gallagher, 118 Erickson Hall, email gallag‘B @msuedu,

184

phone (517) 702-9363. If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a
study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may
contact — anonymously, if you wish -Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-
2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East
Lansing, MI 48824.

 

Thank you,

David Gallagher

************************************************************************

 

I have read the above statement and voluntarily give my consent to participate in this
research project.

Student’s Signature Date

 

************************************************************************

185

Parent/Guardian Consent
Dear Parent/Guardian:

Your daughter/son is invited to participate in a research project that will explore how
students in Mrs. Oakley’s class read and write in different parts of their lives, and how
they learn to read and write in school. As part of this research, I am trying to learn about
the various ways and for what reasons students read and write in different situations,
especially in and out of school.

I will spend 2—4 hours a week in Mrs. Oakley’s classroom, observing students, taking
notes, audio taping activities, and chatting with students whenever it is convenient for the
students and for Mrs. Oakley. If your daughter/son takes part in this project I will be
watching for what types of reading and writing she/he does in class and how she/he talks
about it with Mrs. Oakley and classmates. At times, I may ask to copy your child’s
schoolwork or other things that she/he has read or written. In addition, I may obverse
your child in other situations where reading and writing might be involved. These may
be any extracun'icular activities or clubs that she/he may participate in. If your child is
chosen to be observed in his/her extracurricular activities it would just be a few times
over the course of the school year, when convenient and comfortable for your child. By
watching students like your daughter/son read and write, and by chatting with them about
how they use reading and writing in different aspects of their lives, I will learn more
about literaCy learning 1n and out of school.

The data that is obtained in this study, including any demographic information, will be
kept strictly confidential. Your child’s privacy will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law. I will protect the identity of individual children, their families, and
their school districts. As part of collecting information about your child’s reading and
writing activities in and out of school, I will be audio taping discussions that he/she has
with peers, with the teacher, and with myself. I will lock up the audiotapes and I will be
the only one who will listen to them. In reporting the project’s results, your
daughter/son’s name will not be used. I will use a pseudonym for your child to ensure
strict confidentiality. After the completion of the study all audiotapes will be erased and
thrown away.

I do hope that you will allow me to learn about the many ways that your child reads and
writes in and out of school. However, your child’s participation in this study is
completely voluntary. Your child’s participation or nonparticipation will not affect
her/his grades or performance in the classroom in any way. You are also free to
withdraw permission from the study at any time without penalty. She/he is free to refuse
to answer any question at any point during the project. If you are interested in the
research results at the end of the project, then I’ll be happy to provide you with this
information.

If you would like further information or have any questions about the study, please
contact the investigator, David Gallagher, 118 Erickson Hall, email gallag93 @msuedu,

186

 

 

phone (517) 702-9363. If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a
study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may
contact — anonymously, if you wish —Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-
2180, fax: (517) 432—4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East
Lansing, MI 48824.

Thank you,

David Gallagher F.

************************************************************************

 

I have read the above statement and voluntarily give my consent for my child to
participate in this research project.

Iii"

Student’s Name

 

Parent or Guardian Signature Date

 

I have read the above statement and voluntarily give my consent for my child to be audio
taped.

Parent or Guardian Signature Date

 

************************************************************************

187

Teacher Consent Letter
Dear Mrs. Oakley:

Your are invited to participate in a research project that will explore how students in your
classroom read and write in different parts of their lives, and how they learn to read and
write in school. As part of this research, I am trying to learn about the various ways and
for what reasons students read and write in different aspects of their lives, in and out of
school, as well as how you come to know them as literate people and literacy learners.

the students, taking notes, audio taping activities, and chatting with you and the students
whenever it is convenient for the you and the students. I will be watching for what types
of reading and writing students do in class and how they talk about it with you and their
classmates. In addition, I will be interested in the many texts and activities that you
engage in with the students, as well as the discussions that you and the students have
around texts and activities. At times, I may ask to copy their schoolwork or other things
that they have read or written. In addition, I will observe your students in other situations
where reading and writing might be involved. These may be any extracurricular
activities or clubs that they may participate in. These observations will just be a few
times over the course of the school year, when convenient and comfortable for the
student. By watching students like those in your classroom, and by chatting with them
about how they use reading and writing in different aspects of their lives, I will learn
more about literacy learning in and out of school.

As part of this study, I will spend 2-4 hours a week in your classroom, observing you and E

 

If you take part in this project, I will ask that you participate in audio taped interviews
over the course of the school year to ask you about particular activities you ask of the
students. These interviews will not take very long and will be done on a casual basis,
over short visits at times of convenience for you. The data that is obtained in this study,
including demographic information, will be kept strictly confidential. Your privacy will
be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. I will protect the identity of you,
the individual children, their families, and their school districts. As part of collecting
information about yours and the students’ reading and writing activities in and out of
school, I will be audio taping discussions that they have with peers, with you, and with
myself. I will lock up the audiotapes and I will be the only one who will listen to them.
In reporting the project’s results, your students and your name will not be used. I will use
a pseudonym for all names to ensure strict confidentiality. After the completion of the
study all audiotapes will be erased and thrown away.

I do hope that you will allow me to learn about the many ways that your students read
and write in and out of school, and how you come to navigate these literacies in the
classroom. However, your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You are
also free to withdraw permission from the study at any time without penalty. You are
free to refuse to answer any question at any point during the project. If you are interested
in the research results at the end of the project, then I’ll be happy to provide you with this
information.

188

If you would like further information or have any questions about the study, please
contact the investigator, David Gallagher, 118 Erickson Hall, email gallag93 @msuedu,
phone (517) 702-9363. If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a
study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may
contact — anonymously, if you wish —Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355—
2180, fax: (517)432-4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East
Lansing, MI 48824.

Thank you,

David Gallagher

************************************************************************

I have read the above statement and voluntarily agree to participate in this project.

 

Signature Date
I have read the above statement and voluntarily agree to be audio taped in this project

Signature Date

 

************************************************************************

189

 

REFERENCES

190

 

 

u?

 

Alvermann, D. (2001). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Paper presented at
the National Reading Conference, Chicago, IL.

 

Alvermann, D. (Ed). (2002). Adolescents and literacies in a digital world. New York:
Peter Lang.

Alvermann, D., & Hagood, M. (2000). Fandom and critical media literacy. Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43(5), 436-446.

Alvermann, D., Hagood, M., & Williams, K. B. (2001). Image, language, and sound:
Making meaning with popular culture texts. 4(11). H

Alvermann, D., Moon, J ., & Hagood, M. (1999). Popular culture in the classroom:
Teaching and researching critical media literacy. Newark: International Reading
Association.

Alvermann, D., & Xu, S. H. (2003). Children's everyday literacies: Intersections of
popular culture and language arts instruction. Language Arts, 81(2), 145-154.

 

Applebee, A. (1993). Literature in the secondary school: Studies of curriculum and
instruction in the United States. Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Au, K. (1993). Literacy instruction in multicultural settings. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thompson Learning. ’

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds), The
dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (pp. 259-422). Austin, TX:
University of Texas Press.

Barrel], B., Hammett, R., Mayher, J., & Pradl, G. (Eds). (2004). Teaching English today:
Advocating change in the secondary curriculum. New York: Teachers College
Press.

Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one
community. London: Routledge.

Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivanic, R. (Eds). (2000). Situated literacies: Reading and
writing in context. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. New York: Routledge.
Bloome, D., Carter, S. P., Christian, B. M., Otto, S., & Shuart-Faris, N. (2005). Discourse

analysis and the study of classroom language and literacy events: A
microethnographic perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

191

Bloome, H. (1994). The western cannon: The books and school of the ages (Vol.
Riverhead Books): New York.

 

Bogdan, R., & Biklin, S. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods (3rd ed.). Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.

Brandt, D., & Clinton, K. (2002). Limits of the local: Exapnding perspectives on literacy
as a social practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 34(3), 337-356.

Brimi. (2005). The influence of cultural capital on twenty-first
century secondary school literature curricula. Electronic Journal of Sociology, l-
31.

Cairney, T. (2000). The construction of literacy and literacy learners. Langauge Arts,
77(6).

Camitta, M. (1993). Vernacular writing. In B. Street (Ed.), Cross-cultural approaches to
literacy (pp. 228-246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Cazden, C. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research
on teaching. New York: Macmillan.

Cope,B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds). (2000). Multiliteracies. Literacy learning and the
design of soczal futures New York: Routledge.

Dyson, A. H. (1993). Social worlds of children learning to write. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.

Dyson, A. H. (2003). The brothers and sisters learn to write: Popular literacies in
childhood and school cultures. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Dyson, A. H. (2004). Diversity as a "handful": Toward retheorizing the basics. Research
in the Teaching of English, 39(2), 210-214.

Dyson, A. H., & Genishi, C. (2005). On the case: Approaches to language and literacy
research. New York: Teachers College Press.

Emerson, R., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock
(Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching. New York: Macmillan.

Faigley, L. (1998). Literacy after the revolution: 1996 CCCC Chair's address. In T. Tayler

& 1. Ward (Eds), Literacy theory in the age of the intemet. New York: Columbia
University Press.

192

Fairclough, N. (2000). Multiliteracies and language. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds),
Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social fittures (pp. 162-181).
New York: Routledge.

Finders, M. J. (1997). Just girls: Hidden literacies and life in junior high. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.

Gallagher, J. D. (2006). “You have to be bad or dumb to get in here”: Reconsidering the
in-school and out-of-school literacy practices of at-risk adolescents. In V. Purcell-
Gates (Ed.), Cultural practices of literacy: Case studies of language, literacy,
social practice, and power. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies. Philadelphia: Routledge/Falmer Press.

Gee, J. P. (2000). New people in new worlds: Networks, new capitalism and schools. In
B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design
of social futures (pp. 43-68). New York: Routledge.

Gonzalez, N., Moll, L., Tenery, M. F., Rivera, A., Rendon, P., Gonzalez, R., et a1. (1995).
Funds of Knowledge For Teaching in Latino Households. Urban Education,
29(4), 443-470.

Green, C., Dixon, C., & Zaharlick, A. (2003). Ethnography as a logic of inquiry. In J.
Flood, D. Lapp, J. Squire & J. Jensen (Eds), Handbook of Research on Teaching
the English Language Arts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gutierrez, K., Rymes, B., & Larson, J. (1995). Script, counterscript, and underlife in the
classroom: James Brown versus Brown v. Board of Education. Harvard
Educational Review, 65(3).

Gutierrez, K., & Stone, L. D. (2000). Synchronic and Diachronic Dimensions of Social
Practice: An Emerging Methodology for Cultural-Historical Perspectives on
Literacy Leaming. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Vygotskian Perspectives on Literacy
Research: Constructing Meaning through Collaborative Inquiry. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. '

Hall, S. (Ed.). (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Heath, S. B. (1982). Protean shapes in literacy events: Ever-shifting oral and literate
traditions. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language : Exploring orality
and literacy. Norwood, N.J.: ABLEX Pub. Corp.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

193

 

Hinchman, K., Alvermann, D., Boyd, F., Brozo, W., & Vacca, R. (2003). Supporting
older students' in- and out-of-school literacies. Journal of Adolescent and Adult
Literacy, 47(4), 304-310.

Hirsch, E. D. (1987). Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.

Hirsch, E. D. (1996). The schools we need and why we don 't have them. New York:
Doubleday.

Hull, G., & Schultz, K. (2001). Literacy and learning out of school: A review of theory
and research. Review of Educational Research, 71(4), 571-61 1.

Hull, 6., & Shultz, K. (Eds). (2002). School's out! Bridging out-of-school literacies with
classroom practice. New York, NY: Teachers College.

Hymes, D. (1972). Introduction. In C. Cazden, D. Hymes & V. Johns (Eds), Functions of
language in the classroom (pp. xi-lvii). New York: Teachers College Press.

 

Knobel, M. (1999). Everyday literacies: Students, discourse, and social practice. New
York: Peter Lang.

Knobel, M. (2001). "I'm not a pencil man": How one student challenges our notions of
literacy "failure" in school. Journal of Adolescent Literacy, 44(5), 404—4 14.

Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2002). Cut, Paste, Publish: The Production and

Consumption of Zines. In D. Alvermann (Ed.), Adolescents and Literacies in a
Digital World. New York: Peter Lang.

Kress, G. (2000a). Design and transformation. In Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and
the design of social fixtures (pp. 153-161). New York: Routledge.

Kress, G. (2000b). Multimodality. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds), Multiliteracies:
Literacy learning and the design of social fittures (pp. 182-202). New York:
Routledge.

Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York: Routledge.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and
classroomlearning. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

LeCompte, M., & Schensul, J. (1999). Analyzing and interpreting ethnographic data.
Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

194

Lee, C. (1995). A culturally based cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching African American

high school students in literary interpretation. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4),
608-630.

Lee, C. (1997). Bridging home and school literacies: Models for culturally responsive
teaching, A case for African American English. In J. Flood, 8. B. Heath & D.
Lapp (Eds), Handbook of Research on Teaching Through the Communicative
and Visual Arts (pp. 334-345). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Lee, C. (2000). Signifying in the zone of proximal development. In C. Lee & P.
Smagorinsky (Eds), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing
meaning through collaborative inquiry. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Leu, D., & Kinzer, C. (2003). In J. Richards & M. McKenna (Eds), Integrating multiple
literacies in K-8 classrooms: Cases, commentaries, and practical applications.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lewis, C. (2001). Literary practices as social acts: Power, status and cultural norms in
the classroom. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Luke, A. (2004). The trouble with English. Research in the Teaching of English, 39(1),
85-95.

Luke, C. (2000). Cyber-schooling and technological change: Multiliteracies for new
times. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and
the design of social fiztures (pp. 69-91). New York: Routledge.

Mahiri, J. (1998). Shooting for excellence: African American and youth culture in new
century schools. New York, NY: National Council of Teachers of English and
Teachers College Press.

Mahiri, J. (Ed.). (2004). What they don 't learn in school: Literacy in the lives of urban
youth. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

McCarthey, S. (2000). Home-school connections: A review of the literature. The Journal
of Educational Research, 93(3), 145-153.

Mehan, H. (1982). The structure of classroom events and their consequences for student
performance. In P. Gilmore & A. A. Glatthom (Eds), Children in and out of
school (pp. 59--87). Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Miller, P., & Goodnow, J. (1995). Cultural practices: toward an integration of culture and

development. In P. Miller & F. Kessel (Eds), Cultural practices as contexts for
development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

195

 

Moje, E. (2000). "To be part of the story": The literacy practices of gangsta adolescents.
Teachers College Record, 102(3), 651-690.

Moje, E. (2002). Re-framing adolescent literacy research for the new times: Studying
youth as a resource. Reading Research and Instruction, 41(3), 211-228.

Moje, E., Ciechanowski, K., Kramer, K., & Ellis, L. (2004). Working towards third space
in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and
discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38-71.

Moje, E., Willes, D., & Fassio, K. (2001). Constructing and negotiating literacy in a

writer's workshop: Litreacy teaching and learning in the seventh grade. In E. Moje FT
& D. O'Brien (Eds), Constructions of literacy: Studies of teaching and learning
In and out of secondary schools. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ..
Moll, L. (1994). Literacy research in community and classrooms: A sociocultural ?
approach. In R. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds), Theoretical models
and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 179-207). Newark, DE: International a
I...—

 

Reading Association, Inc.

Moll, L. (2000). Inspired by Vygotsky: Ethnographic Experiments in Education. In P.
Smagorinsky (Ed.), Vygotskian Perspectives on Literacy Research: Constructing
Meaning Through Collaborative Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of Knowledge for
Teaching: Using a Qualitative Approach to Connect Homes and Classrooms.
Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132-141.

Morgan, R. (2004). Uncertain relations: English and cultural studies. In B. Barrel], R.
Hammett, J. Mayher & G. Pradl (Eds), Teaching English today: Advocating
change in the secondary curriculum (pp. 36-56). New York: Teachers College
Press.

Morrell, E. (2002). Toward a critical pedagogy of popular culture: Literacy development
among urban youth. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 46(1), 72-77.

Morrell, E., & Duncan-Andrade, J. (2002). Promoting academic literacy with urban youth
through engaging hip-hop culture. English Journal, 91, 88-92.

Morrell, E., & Duncan-Andrade, J. (2004). What they do learn in school: Using hip-hop
as a bridge between youth culture and canonical poetry texts. In J. Mahiri (Ed.),
What they don 't learn in school (pp. 247-268). New York: Peter Lang.

NCTE standards for the English language arts. (1996). Urbana: NCTE.

196

Nelms, B. (2000). Reconstructing English: From the 1890s to the 19905 and beyond.
English Journal, 89(3), 49-59.

Nixon, H. (2003). Textual diversity: Who needs it? Paper presented at the International
Federation for the Teaching of English, Melbourne, Australia.

Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening dialogues:
Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Purcell-Gates, V. (2004). Ethnographic research. In N. K. Duke & M. H. Mallette (Eds),
Literacy Research Methodologies: The Guilford Press.

Purcell-Gates, V. (Ed.). (2006). Cultural practices of literacy: Case studies of language,
literacy, social practice, and power. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Purves, A. (1990). The scribal society: An essay on literacy. New York: Longman.

Scholes, R. (1998). The rise and fall of English: Reconstructing English as a discipline.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Shange, N. ( 1975). For colored girls who have considered suicide when the rainbow is
enuf. Oakland, CA: Shameless Hussy Press.

Skilton-Sylvester. (2002). Literate at Home but Not at School: A Cambodian Girl's
Journey from Playwrite to Struggling Writer. In K. Schultz (Ed.), School 's Outl:
Bridging Out-of-School Literacies with Classroom Practice. New York: Teachers
College Press.

Smith, M., & Wilhelm, J. (2002). "Reading don 't fix no Chevy 's": Literacy in the lives of
young men. Portsmouth, NY: Heinemann.

Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. A

Street, B. (2000). Literacy events and literacy practices: theory and practice in the New
Literacy Studies. In M. Martin-Jones & K. Jones (Eds), Multilingual literacies
(pp. 17-30). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Street, B. (2001a). Introduction. In B. Street (Ed.), Literacy and development. New York:
Routledge.

Street, B. (Ed.). (2001b). Literacy and development. New York, NY: Routledge.

The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.
Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.

197

 

Unsworth, L. (2002). Changing dimensions of school literacies. The Australian Journal
of Language and Literacy, 25(1), 62- 77.

Vasquez, O., Pease-Alvarez, L., & Shannon, S. (1994). Pushing boundaries: Language
and culture in a Mexicano community. New York, NY: Cambridge University '
Press.

Vetrie, M. (2004). Using film to increase literacy skills. English Journal, 93(3), 39-45.

Willinsky, J. (1991). The triumph of literature/the fate of literacy. New York: Teachers
College Press.

198

 

 

 

 

 

at..l..illll.lll.r’. .. u

x:

      

llllll

V
956

S

lllllll

     

lll’llllljflllllfll