Socially Constituting Middle Childhood Students As Struggling ...

Socially Constituting Middle Childhood Students As

Struggling Readers in Peer Interactions

Dissertation

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in

the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Margaret Crook Grigorenko, M.Ed.

Graduate Program in Education

The Ohio State University

2010

Dissertation Committee:

David Bloome, Advisor

Leslie Moore

Jan Nespor

Elaine Richardson

Copyright by

Margaret Crook Grigorenko

2010

ii

ABSTRACT

This study investigates how students in third-, fourth- and fifth-grade classes at a

rural school are socially constituted as “struggling readers,” and how this social status

impacts reading achievement. It examines the ways that some students are positioned as

inferior readers in relation to their classmates during peer-to-peer literacy events.

Findings show that students take up the positioning and develop ways of acting in

relation to reading and other students. As individuals in the social group come to

understand the position they occupy within a social space, they take on attitudes,

dispositions and practices – a habitus - that over time becomes relatively durable by

becoming naturalized and expected by both the student and others in his or her social

space. Findings show that the label and position of “struggling reader” has consequences

for the student’s academic achievement, social relationships and emotional well-being.

Building on theoretical work in sociolinguistic ethnography, New Literacy

Studies, discourse analysis and educational research examining the use of language in

classrooms, this study uses microethnographic discourse analysis to generate grounded

theoretical constructs related to how students in the middle childhood age range are

socially constituted as struggling readers. Findings indicate that the organization of

literacy instruction creates social spaces where students hierarchically position one

another in peer-to-peer interactions based on definitions of reading and knowledge and on

iii

reading assessments used by the school system. Students take up and adopt a habitus that

fulfills the expectations of the assigned social position. Findings show that conceptions of

time are implicated in constituting a struggling reader. As the group creates a set of

collective memories and develops a narrative related to a student’s future based on

literacy ability, the student’s inferior social position becomes naturalized and impacts

their relations with members of their community and their self-esteem.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to the administrators, faculty, students and parents at “Mapleton-

Rockford” schools for your willingness to allow me to conduct this study.

I wish to thank the administration, Education Department faculty and students at

Cedarville University for their prayers, encouragement, and flexibility.

I wish to express my deep appreciation to my advisor, Dr. David Bloome, and the

members of my dissertation committee, Drs. Leslie Moore, Jan Nespor and Elaine

Richardson for the expertise and time that they invested in this project.

To my friend and comrade in doctoral work, Marlene Beierle, I wish to express

my appreciation and admiration. May the friendship continue.

I give thanks to God, who has sustained me and led me through this process.

Thanks go to my parents, Bob and Betty Crook and Irene Grigorenko for their

unflagging encouragement and support, and to my children and grandchildren, J., Corrie,

Daniel, Andie, Lyndie, Dale and Mariah, Magnus and Aurora. Your encouragement and

belief in me kept me going. Finally, an enormous debt of gratitude is owed to my

husband and best friend, Don. Having completed a Ph.D. before me, he knew what we

were getting into, yet supported me as I pursued my dreams and goals.

v

VITA

1978 ................................................... B.S. in Education, Bowling Green State University

1979 ................................................... Teacher: Behavior Disorders, Grades 5-7

Portland Public Schools, Portland, Oregon

1991-1996 ......................................... General Tutor/Coordinator of American Studies

Kathmandu International Study Centre,

Kathmandu, Nepal

1998-1999 ......................................... Teacher and Learning Disabilities Tutor

Crossroads Christian Academy,

Ellettsville, Indiana

2002-2006…………………………..Intervention Specialist, High School and

Middle School, Cedarville, Ohio

2005 ................................................... M.Ed. in Education, Cedarville University

2006-Present ..................................... Assistant Professor of Education

Cedarville University, Cedarville, Ohio

PUBLICATIONS

Research Publications

Dugle, V.S. & Grigorenko, P. (2009). Fostering resilient characteristics in individuals

with learning disabilities. The ICCTE Journal, 4(1).

Bloome, D., Beierle, M., Grigorenko, M. & Goldman, S. (2009). Learning over time:

uses of intercontextuality, collective memories and classroom chronotopes in the

construction of learning opportunities in a ninth-grade language arts classroom.

Language and Education, 23(4), 313-334.

vi

FIELD OF STUDY

Major Field: Education

Language, Education and Society

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract ............................................................................................................... ... ii

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................ iv

Vita ......................................................................................................................... v

List of Tables ...........................................................................................................x

List of Transcripts .................................................................................................. xi

Chapters:

1. Framing the Study ........................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................1

1.2 Defining “Struggling Readers” ..............................................................3

1.3 Theoretical Framework..........................................................................3

1.3.1 Positioning ....................................................................................6

1.3.2 Focus of Study ............................................................................13

1.4 Statement and Significance of the Problem .........................................14

1.5 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................16

1.6 Research Questions .............................................................................16

1.7 Key Terms ...........................................................................................17

1.8 Organization of Dissertation ................................................................19

2. Review of Literature ................................................................................. 21

2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 21

2.2 Literature Related to the Research Focus on “Struggling Readers” ... 21

2.3 Social Construction of Struggling Readers ........................................ 23

2.3.1 Social and Moral Implications ................................................ 28

2.3.2 Cultural and Linguistic Diversity............................................ 30

2.4 Research Literature on Upper Level Struggling Readers ................... 31

2.3.1 Struggling Readers and the “Fourth-grade Slump” ................... 32

2.3.2 Identities and Struggling Readers .............................................. 35

2.3.3 Teacher/Student Relations and Struggling Readers ................... 37

viii

2.3.4 Texts and Struggling Readers .................................................... 38

2.3.5 Social Spaces for Struggling Readers ........................................ 39

2.3.6 Classroom Discursive Practices and Struggling Readers .......... 43

2.3.7 Peer Interactions and Struggling Readers .................................. 45

2.5 Connections of Extant Literature to Study ......................................... 49

3. Research Methodology ............................................................................. 52

3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 52

3.2 Research Design ................................................................................. 52

3.3 Logic of Inquiry .................................................................................. 56

3.3.1 Discourse Analysis .................................................................... 56

3.3.2 Microethnographic Discourse Analysis..................................... 61

3.4 Context of the Study ........................................................................... 64

3.4.1 Choice of Research Site .......................................................... 65

3.4.2 Choice of Research Context.................................................... 66

3.4.3 Gaining Entrance .................................................................... 67

3.5 Participants ......................................................................................... 68

3.5.1 Teacher Participants ................................................................ 68

3.5.2 Student Participants ................................................................ 69

3.5.3 The Eight Struggling Readers ................................................. 71

3.5.4 Other Participants.................................................................... 76

3.6 Data Collection Procedures ................................................................ 77

3.6.1 Classroom Video Recording ................................................... 78

3.6.2 Student Interviews .................................................................. 79

3.6.3 Teacher Interviews .................................................................. 80

3.6.4 Additional Interviews.............................................................. 80

3.7 Role of the Researcher ........................................................................ 81

3.8 Data Analysis Procedures ................................................................... 83

3.9 Summary ............................................................................................ 89

4. The Context ............................................................................................... 90

4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 90

4.2 Social Divisions in the School and Community ................................. 92

4.3 Dialect ............................................................................................... 101

4.4 Relationship of Home Literacy to School Literacy .......................... 107

4.5 School Expectations and Procedural Display ................................... 110

4.5.1 Hard Work and Independence .............................................. 111

4.5.2 Motivation ............................................................................. 112

4.5.3 Participation in Socially Valued Peer Groups ...................... 113

4.5.4 Classroom Performance ........................................................ 115

4.5.5 “Propagating” Struggling Readers ........................................ 118

4.5.6 Implications of Time in Defining a Struggling Reader ........ 119

ix

4.8 Small Town Surveillance .................................................................. 123

4.9 Summary ........................................................................................... 126

5. Socially Constituting a Struggling Reader .............................................. 128

5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 128

5.2 Classroom Analysis .......................................................................... 129

5.2.1 Use of Oral Reading Fluency as a Social Marker ................. 132

5.2.2 Construction of Hierarchical Social Relations ...................... 162

5.2.3 Managing Institutional Literacy Practices ............................ 180

5.2.4 Enactments of “Struggling” .................................................. 204

5.3 Summary ........................................................................................... 225

6. Discussion ............................................................................................... 228

6.1 Organization of Reading Instruction and Social Hierarchies ........... 231

6.1.1 Institutional Definitions of Reading and Texts ....................... 232

6.1.2 Epistemology ........................................................................... 235

6.1.3 Surveillance ............................................................................. 237

6.1.4 Reading as Word-for-word Perfectly Rendered Oral Reading 239

6.1.5 Misassessment and Undervaluation of Students’ Reading ...... 242

6.1.6 Moral Demands and Obligations of Classroom Reading ........ 244

6.2 Student Uptake on Peer Positioning ................................................. 250

6.3 Issues of Time in Constituting Struggling Readers .......................... 256

6.3.1 Implications of Time in Labeling and Enactment of Struggling

Readers ................................................................................... 259

6.3.2 Trajectories and Futures .......................................................... 261

6.3.3 Collective Memories Related to Social Positioning as

Struggling Readers ................................................................ 263

6.4 Summary ............................................................................................ 268

Appendix A – Mapleton Dialect ................................................................... 271

Appendix B – Full Transcripts ...................................................................... 287

B.1 Michelle’s Reading Group ............................................................... 288

B.2 Steven’s Reading Group ................................................................... 294

B.3 Josh and Tex Partner Reading .......................................................... 308

B.4 Science Game ................................................................................... 332

B.5 Gary’s Reading Group ..................................................................... 351

Appendix C – Transcription Conventions .................................................... 362

List of References ......................................................................................... 366

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Timeline ...................................................................................... 55

Table 2. Student Participants .................................................................... 70

Table 3. Struggling Readers ...................................................................... 70

Table 4. Summary of Collected Video Data ............................................ .79

Table 5. Summary of Interview Data ........................................................ 81

Table 6. Focal Classroom Teachers .......................................................... 92

Table 7. List of Analyzed Literacy Events ............................................. 130

xi

LIST OF TRANSCRIPTS

Transcript 1. Sample Analysis ............................................................................. 86

Transcript 2. Michelle in Reading Group........................................................... 134

Transcript 3. Stephen’s Reading Group Segment 1 ........................................... 143




Transcript 7. Partner Reading Segment 1........................................................... 166



Transcript 10. Partner Reading Segment 4......................................................... 172




Transcript 14. Science Game Question One ...................................................... 184

Transcript 15. Science Game Negotiating Turns ............................................... 192

Transcript 16. Science Game – Nico and Josh ................................................... 195

Transcript 14. Science Game – Teacher Rebuke ............................................... 201

Transcript 15. Gary Negotiating a Definition .................................................... 208

xii

Transcript 16. Gary – The Authorized Definition .............................................. 219

1

CHAPTER 1: FRAMING THE STUDY

Introduction

In this study I investigate how students in third-, fourth- and fifth-grade classes at

a rural school are socially constituted as “struggling readers,” and how this social status

impacts reading achievement as well as their wider social relations. I examine the ways

that some students are positioned as inferior readers in relation to their peers during

literacy events. I investigate how the students take up the positioning and develop ways

of acting in relation to reading practices and other students. As individuals in the social

group come to understand the position they occupy within a social space, they take on

attitudes, dispositions and practices – a habitus – that over time become relatively durable

by becoming naturalized and expected by both the student and others in his or her social

space. The rationale for addressing this problem is that the label and position of

“struggling reader” has consequences for the student‟s academic achievement, social

relationships and emotional well-being.

In contrast to the perspective that views literacy as an individually acquired set of

cognitive and linguistic skills, in this study I proceed from the perspective that literacy is

a “set of social and cultural practices enacted by a group” (Bloome, Katz, Solsken,

Willett, Wilson-Keenan, 2000, p. 155). From this point of view, investigating literacy

practices involves a “focus on how persons engage in social and cultural activities that

2

involve written language” (Bloome, et al., 2000, p. 155). Questions need to be asked

about the social relations and relationships among the participants, how the literacy

practices and their enactment impact the social and cultural identities of the participants,

how the varying literacy practices of the participants interconnect, how power dynamics

are involved, and what social, cultural or political agendas are involved.

Extrapolating from that perspective, I approached the concept of struggling

readers from an understanding that literacy competence and struggle cannot be

understood in terms of absolute levels of text-based skill, but are relational concepts

defined by social, cultural and communicative practices and situated in a particular

social/historical field. Thus, the position of “struggling reader” is a social construction,

and the interactions that result in a student being positioned as a struggling reader are a

social process. The goal of the study is to generate theoretical constructs related to how

middle childhood students are socially constituted as struggling readers, and specifically

how students position one another and are positioned through literacy events and

practices resulting in some students being socialized to a habitus that negatively impacts

their lives.

The way that I am using the term “habitus” is similar to the way that it is used by

Bourdieu (1972/1977) to describe relatively durable sets of dispositions that come to

characterize a person‟s practices within a particular field. The use of habitus implies the

concept of “field” since for Bourdieu, habitus always exists within a field. Therefore,

whenever I use the term habitus I am always implying the concept of field. These

concepts will be expanded upon below.

3

Defining “Struggling Readers”

The use of the term “struggling readers” is ubiquitous in current discussions of

student reading progress yet is an imprecise term. Two writers noted that the term

assumes varying attributes based on who is defining it for what purpose (Alvermann,

2006; Conley, Friedhoff, Sherry & Tuckey, 2008). In writings about struggling readers,

some of the synonyms for “struggling readers” include slow readers, remedial readers,

low readers, disabled readers, at-risk readers, striving readers, low-achieving readers and

readers with learning disabilities. Certain writers included students with sensory or

physical disabilities and/or students for whom English is an additional language. For the

purposes of this study, I take the definition of Alvermann (2006) who stated that the term

describes “students who for whatever reasons appear unable to keep up with the school-

related reading that is required of them” (p. 95).

Theoretical Framework

The proposed analysis of social relations within classrooms and the examination

of how students come to be considered struggling readers is linked to what Gee (1999)

labeled the “social turn” in literacy research combining “attention to how people use

language and other systems of communication in constructing language and literacy

events in classrooms with attention to social, cultural and political processes” (Bloome,

Carter, Christian, Otto & Shuart-Faris, 2005, p. xv).

Building on theoretical work in sociolinguistic ethnography (Duranti, 1997, 2001;

Gumperz, 1982b; Hymes, 1974; Saville-Troike, 2003), New Literacy Studies (Barton &

Hamilton, 1998; Barton, Hamilton & Ivanic, 2000; Bloome, 1993; Gee, 1996, 2000;

4

Heath, 1983; Street, 1997, 2003), discourse analysis (Cameron, 2001; Fairclough, 2003;

Gee, 1999; Johnstone, 2008), and educational research examining the use of language in

classrooms (Cazden, 2001; Green, 1983), I use microethnographic discourse analysis

(Bloome, et al., 2005) to generate grounded theoretical constructs related to how students

in the middle childhood age range are socially constituted as struggling readers. Other

researchers have focused on how social interactions with teachers are implicated in the

constitution of struggling readers (Hall, 2007a, 2007b, 2009; McCarthey, 2002; Moje and

Dillon, 2006; Wortham, 2007; Zacher, 2008a, 2008b). In this study I extend the existing

work by focusing on student to student interactions.

The particular focus of this study is students who demonstrate basic reading skills,

but who do not excel in the classroom, and who are considered to be poor readers by

themselves, their teachers, families and peers. Though they have mastered many of the

technical skills that educators use as predictors of reading progress, the members of their

community have identified them as those students who do not use reading skills in ways

that allow them to independently complete grade level work with texts. This evaluation is

usually also accompanied by poor performances on standards-based tests that are legally

mandated in public schools. The struggling readers have adopted a particular social role

within the classroom community that position them as inferior readers to their classmates

and have taken on the habitus of “struggling reader.” I interpret the findings of the study

as showing that over time students have been socialized into and adopted conceptions of

the hierarchical nature of classroom life and of their own social position within that social

5

field. This study asks the question of how this happens and what social structures and

interactions are implicated in the process.

Lave (1996) argued that learning in classrooms is not simply a matter of acquiring

technical skills, but of mastering a set of social practices that move students to full

participation in their community of practice. Requisite reading skills are needed for

academic literacy, but adequate technical skills appear insufficient to ensure that a

student will make expected academic progress. The study of how a student comes to be

considered a struggling reader involves more than an analysis of reading and writing

skills. It involves an analysis of the field of the classroom in relation to the fields of

power in which it is embedded, and an analysis of the structure of relations between the

participants in the classroom.

This study revolves around the socially applied label of “struggling reader.” The

act of labeling a student as a “struggling reader” places a student into a category or

identity which the student has adopted or which others have assigned in relation to

literacy. Researchers from multiple theoretical perspectives adopt varying metaphors

related to the construct of “identity” depending on how they conceptualize it. Differing

conceptions consider identity as related to literacy in terms of whether it refers to a

socially constructed form or is intrinsic to a person; whether it develops based upon

hereditary and socialized features over which an individual has little control or through a

series of agentive moves; whether it is primarily internalized or is socially performed;

whether it is stable over time and spaces or changes based on context (Moje & Luke,

2009).

6

For this study, I adopt the metaphor of identity as social position. This focuses on

the ways that “subjectivities and identities are produced in and through not only activity

and movement in and across spaces, but also in the ways people are cast in or called to

particular positions in interaction, time and spaces and how they take up or resist those

positions” (Moje & Luke, 2009, p. 430).

Positioning

The theoretical perspective of positioning emerged from the work of Davies and

Harré (1990). They contended that positioning is a concept that is useful to facilitate the

thinking of linguistically-oriented social analysts about how people construct hierarchical

relations with one another (p. 87). From this perspective, discourses or discursive

practices are the ways that phenomena are determined and given social value, where

discourse is “a multifaceted public process through which meanings are progressively

and dynamically achieved” (Davies and Harré,1990, p. 89). The constitutive force of

discursive processes relates to how interactions create subject positions for those who

engage in them:

Once having taken up a particular position as one‟s own, a person

inevitably sees the world from the vantage point of that position and in

terms of the particular images, metaphors, storylines, and concepts that are

made relevant within the particular discursive practices in which they are

positioned. At least a possibility of notional choice is inevitably involved

because there are many and contradictory discursive practices that each

person could engage in. Among the products of discursive practices are

the very persons who engage in them. (Davies and Harré, 1990, p. 89)

The concept of positioning overlaps with narratology because in any social action, an

individual does not emerge as a finished product, but is constituted and reconstituted

through ongoing interactions with persons using multiple discursive practices:

7

Accordingly, who one is is always an open question with a shifting answer

depending upon the positions made available through one‟s own and

others‟ discursive practices and within those practices, the stories through

which we make sense of our own and others‟ lives. Stories are located

within a number of different discourses and thus vary dramatically in

terms of the language used, the concepts, issues, and moral judgments

made relevant, and the subject positions made available within them.

(Davies and Harré, 1990, p. 89)

The development of a perspective of who we are in the world and what that means for

our activities includes the processes of 1) learning the categories that include some

people and exclude others, 2) participating in various discourses through which meanings

are given to the categories thereby creating subject positions as part of a storyline, 3)

positioning oneself in terms of categories and storylines, and 4) recognizing certain

personal characteristics that locate oneself as part of certain subclasses and not of others.

This recognition involves an emotional commitment to the category of membership as

well as the adoption of a moral system organized around belonging to the group (Davies

and Harré, 1990, p. 90).

Positioning, then, is actively played out in interaction with others, both through

language and semiotic signs as people negotiate their relationships based upon

understandings of how they are expected to interact with one another, and how the

particular people involved in the interaction are related to one another. I recognize that

part of this process takes place in the mind of each participant and through the cumulative

understandings of cultural and social processes that an individual brings to any encounter,

but those cognitive actions only become visible to an observer in the ways that social

relations are constructed in relation to the field and the other interactants. These relations

8

are visible and able to be studied through observing what position each party takes up

according to what story, and how they in turn are positioned by others in the interaction:

Positioning, as we will use it is the discursive process whereby selves are

located in conversations as observably and subjectively coherent

participants in jointly produced story lines. There can be interactive

positioning in which what one person says positions another. And there

can be reflexive positioning in which one positions oneself. (Davies &

Harré, 1990, p. 91)

Holland and Leander (2004) have worked to extend and refine the conceptions of

positioning by considering multiple types of interactions such as spatial arrangements and

media in which “subjects are produced and subjectivities formed” (p. 127). They relate

the process of positioning to the work of McDermott (2000), who theorizes how

categories of people are constructed as having certain personas that are widely circulated

and widely accepted:

These personas are expressed through cultural forms that circulate and are

sometimes materially or semiotically linked to, sometimes embraced by,

an individual or a group: a story, a song, an image, a learned text, for

example. These cultural forms are important as mediating resources. They

help to interpret or figure social positions. They turn a social position, a

place in a game, an institution or a broader social field into a cultural

persona…because their widespread circulation and cultural elaboration,

constitute important social identities available and often pushed on

individuals, some of whom in time come to inhabit them or, as we prefer

to say here, come to construct their senses of self in relation to these

persona. (Holland & Leander, 2004, p. 129)

I begin my study from an understanding that the social construction and label of

“struggling reader” represents a broadly held and circulated cultural persona as defined

above. Because the focus of the study is on a category of person that is widely used to

describe students in American schools, I work from a theoretical frame that seeks to

identify how the conception of the cultural persona of “struggling reader” becomes

9

applied to individual students in a particular set of classrooms. Positioning is understood

to be discursively produced, so the study of the process of being positioned as a

struggling reader then requires detailed observation and “thick description” (Geertz,

1973) of classroom interactions to generate theoretical constructs related to the

constitution of struggling readers.

Holland and Leander (2004) also emphasize the historical, time-related aspect of

the concept of positioning and suggest that a study of positioning needs to “describe the

relationships between available positions, individual subjectivities and specific episodes

of (positioning) practice” (p. 131, italics original). They borrow the metaphor of

lamination from Brenneis (2003) who likened the complex phenomena involved in

positioning to cymbals or drums that are constructed by layering and laminating like and

unlike substances together into one melded whole. The lamination process allows the

musical instrument to gain additional qualities including patina, resonance and strength,

as well as allowing the sound texture to “thicken” over time, creating a deeper, brighter

sound. This metaphor of positioning highlights the ways that time and experience play a

role in the process of positioning. Holland and Leander (2004) connect this to positioning

theory:

Lamination has theoretical resonance…Episodes of conditioning create

what we might think of as a laminate. They leave memories laced through

feelings, bodily reactions, and the words and glances of others…Besides

these traces in the minds/bodies of participants, the incidents also leave

behind tangible artifacts, such as a notation in a school record…In them, a

particular person or a particular group of people – maybe oneself or one‟s

group, is brought into suggestive association with a social position. The

surviving artifacts, whether remembered feelings or words written down

by the participant, can resonate with contemporary events…Together,

these associations, especially in the case of numerous related episodes, can

10

“thicken” (Holland and Lave, 2001)…acquiring more and more layers.

The person and the category plus the memories and artifacts of past

episodes of positioning become virtually laminated on to one another and

so come to constitute a hybrid unit in social and emotional life. (Holland

& Leander, 2004, pp. 131-132)

Holland and Leander (2004) relate positioning to “theories of practice” (Bourdieu

1972/1977, 1990). From this perspective, the action or practices that people engage in are

not based upon fixed structures or individually selected acts. Instead social structure and

subjectivities are interactionally constructed in a particular socio-historical space or

“field” in Bourdieu‟s terms. The ways of acting depend upon the cultural resources of the

interactants and the ways that they collectively manipulate those resources in ways that

form subjectivities. The term “practice” in a Bourdieuian sense refers to engaged, social

action that is both structured by the field in which it occurs and the histories of the

participants, and is structuring by the ongoing negotiated relations that are being

constructed in real time.

Researchers who work with a theory of positioning describe the products of social

positioning in multiple ways including an “identity,” “cultural persona,” “sense of self,”

or “habitus” among others. For the purpose of this paper I have selected to use

Bourdieu‟s (1972/1977) term “habitus” to describe the laminated set of dispositions and

positions that the students took up and utilized in their interactions in the classroom. The

concept of “habitus” was developed by Bourdieu in his effort to deal with the

sociological and experiential dilemma of accounting for two seemingly conflicting issues:

that persons experientially feel and act as free agents, but do so basing everyday

decisions upon the predictable nature of the values, behavior and attitudes of those

11

around them. Though there are no cemented set of rules by which interactions take place

and therefore demand certain behaviors, there are sets of dispositions and expected

behaviors that are not explicit, yet influence and limit the choices that people make.

Bourdieu described habitus as:

The structures constitutive of a particular type of environment (e.g.

the material conditions of existence characteristic of a class condition)

produce habitus, systems of durable, transposable dispositions, structured

structures predisposed to function as structuring structures, that is, as

principles of the generation and structuring of practices and

representations which can be objectively “regulated” and “regular”

without in any way being the product of obedience to rules, objectively

adapted to their goals without presupposing a conscious aiming at ends or

an express mastery of the operations necessary to obtain them and, being

all this, collectively orchestrated without being the product of the

orchestrating action of a conductor. (Bourdieu, 1972/1977, p. 72, italics

original)

Bourdieu‟s concepts of habitus and field are often approached as two distinct

categories, but in his writings, the two are intricately linked. He connects his conception

of habitus to the social structures or organizing principles that result in particular ways of

being:

It [habitus] expresses first the result of an organizing action, with a

meaning close to that of words such as structure; it also designates a way

of being, a habitual state (especially of the body) and, in particular, a

predisposition, tendency, propensity or inclination. (Bourdieu, 1972/1977,

p. 214, italics original)

Bourdieu emphasizes that habitus is not the solely controlling factor of human behavior,

in which a person would deterministically act out the practices to which they were

socialized as children. Instead he indicates that social practices are a result of “an obscure

and double relation” (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 126) in which historical

experiences that have resulted in a particular set of dispositions interact with agency

12

executed in current and particular social settings to result in a set of practices. Bourdieu

(1986, p. 101) as cited in Maton, 2008, used the following equation to summarize his

theory:

[[habitus) (capital)] + field = practice

This equation can be unpacked as stating: practice results from relations

between one‟s dispositions (habitus) and one‟s position in a field (capital),

within the current state of play of that social arena (field). This concise

formulation highlights something of crucial significance for understanding

Bourdieu‟s approach: the interlocking nature of his three main “thinking

tools” (Bourdieu & Wacquantm 1989d:50): habitus, field and capital.

Practices are thus not simply the result of one‟s habitus but rather relations

between one‟s habitus and one‟s current circumstances. (Maton, 2008, pp.

51-52).

In this way, Bourdieu uses habitus as a kind of conditioning that each person brings from

their past into the present, and uses as a resource in real time actions on the way that they

will act and react to others that they encounter as they move through their lives. Since

these encounters occur in specific places that require a variety of ways of responding,

Bourdieu emphasizes that habitus should be considered durable because the set of

dispositions tends to transcend time and to impact the way a person may present

themselves or be perceived over a series of interactions or settings, but at the same time it

should be considered transposable because the habitus is activated differently over a

wide variety of arenas of social action (Bourdieu, 1993).

In considering the social position of “struggling reader” and having observed

students who have been categorized as struggling readers over many years as a classroom

teacher, Bourdieu‟s description of habitus resonates with the ways that students develop

their manner of interacting in the classroom. Perhaps because school consumes such a

13

large portion of the time and experiences of school-age children, and perhaps because

children are not trained to be highly reflective of their experiences and interactions, the

socialization that happens in a child‟s early years of life and in their early years of

schooling is reflected in an adopted social sense. Bourdieu‟s habitus is described as such

a sense:

The habitus is sometimes described as a „feel for the game‟, a „practical

sense‟ (sens pratique) that inclines agents to act and react in specific

situations in a manner that is not always calculated and this is not simply a

question of conscious obedience to rules. Rather, it is a set of dispositions

which generates practices and perceptions. (Johnson, in Bourdieu, 1993, p.

5)

At the same time, habitus has a temporal component, explaining how people act based

upon their history which has impacted their perceptions of the present: “The habitus –

embodied history, internalized as second nature and so forgotten as history – is the active

presence of the whole past of which it is a product” (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 56).

Though other terms could have just as well been used, I selected habitus over the

other commonly used term “identity” because the term “identity” is sometimes

considered to be a role or character that a person takes up in a particular context. The

term “habitus” carries with it a more durable sense, in that it has been developed over a

period of time, and describes the sets of social conventions that have been accepted as

natural, and which serve as the pattern of responses that characterize a person‟s

interactions.

Focus of Study

Thus, the focus of my research seeks to identify theoretical constructs that explain

how students are positioned, accept or adopt the positioning and come to enact a habitus

14

of a struggling reader within a particular field. My theoretical frame seeks to bring

together some of the other metaphors that researchers use to study identity. Through the

foregrounding of positioning, I recognize that in any social field, persons as subjects are

called into being and are offered certain positions in relation to others in the field. As

positions are proposed and negotiated, people come to be considered in particular ways

by themselves and others, and adopt certain ways of thinking and acting that are socially

recognized and marked as a category or type of person. This theoretical frame takes into

consideration the ways that people mutually create storylines and place themselves and

others in the stories. It also accounts for the nonlinear and sometimes fragmented,

confused and partial stories that are used to construct, recognize and name a person‟s

ways of being in a particular time, space or activity. The study of positioning focuses on

the ways that people “do” relationship and identity building, and requires that a

researcher follow them through various social, physical and temporal positions,

documenting the activities, discursive productions and artifacts that they produce or use.

It also accounts for the ways that a person‟s history and previous experience may

influence a social negotiation in the present, and explains how a person may take up a

particular habitus that comes to be recognized as representing and marking them as a

certain type of person and which gets carried across different fields or activities.

Statement and Significance of the Problem

Recent national policy in the United States related to reading has turned its focus

on the development of reading beyond the early years of schooling. Results of the

National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) reported in the National Report

15

Card (2007) have fueled a recognition that reading instruction needs to be continued

beyond early elementary school, as well as a recognition that many students who never

meet desired levels of academic reading continue to come from groups who have been

historically marginalized, including students of color, students with dialects or limited

English proficiency, and students from families that are considered to be of low socio-

economic status. The result is an increased focus on research related to the reading needs

of older students, and particularly the group that has been called “struggling” or

“striving” readers.

A variety of studies have been conducted on “struggling readers,” specifically

those in middle childhood. These studies will be presented in the literature review in

chapter 2. Some researchers have investigated the construct of “struggling reader” and

the social implications for students who are given the label. A large portion of the

research on “struggling readers” has been related to potential interventions that could

address the deficits that many assume to be associated with the label. A third segment of

research has looked at school social practices as a site where “struggling readers” may be

produced or maintained. This strand of research investigates how institutional policies

and teachers‟ assumptions and/or pedagogy may be implicated in the positioning of

students as “struggling readers.”

In this study I propose to expand on this third strand of research to address the

question of how students may label themselves and/or be labeled by others as “struggling

readers” in middle childhood classrooms, and how peer-to-peer interactions during

literacy events are implicated in the process. With this analysis I seek to extend the

16

existing research by developing theoretical constructs of how the adaptation and

manipulation of literacy skills as social markers construct social relations in peer groups,

and how the positioning of students based upon literacy capabilities impacts student

social practices, academic literacy progress and the adoption of a habitus.

Purpose of the Study

This study adds to this body of research about struggling readers by analyzing

how students themselves use classroom literacy events as interactional resources to

collectively accomplish the category of “struggling reader.” I look at how students are

positioned or position themselves within that category by taking on certain embodied

ways of speaking, moving and relating – the habitus. The goal of the study is to describe

students‟ social interactions around literacy, especially related to peer-to-peer literacy

exchanges, and to identify theoretical constructs that explain how students become

constituted as “struggling readers.” In understanding how students are positioned as

subjects and labeled in ways that are considered to be socially inferior, I seek to give

educators information that would allow them to interrupt the largely invisible social

processes that negatively impact students‟ academic progress and personal, emotional

well-being.

Research Questions

Given the ethnographic and microethnographic nature of the study, research

questions primarily serve to guide the inquiry, and are not hypotheses to be confirmed or

disconfirmed. The study seeks to address the questions: 1) How do some middle

childhood students come to be socially marked as struggling readers? 2) How are peer-

17

to-peer interactions around literacy events implicated in such positioning? 3) How do

students use literacy practices in ways that socially differentiate some students as

struggling readers or hierarchically position one another based on literacy skills?

Key Terms

Enactment – The performance of a person in a particular setting. In this paper, the term is

used in the sense of Hull and Zacher (2007) who state:

Our central concept and key term is enacting an identity - which refers to

the embodiment principally through language and particularly narrative,

but also through gesture, dress, posture, and demeanor – of who one is in

relation to others.… [W]e deliberately selected the metaphor of

„enactment,‟ instead of „fashioning‟ (Holland et al., 1998) or

„performance‟ (Goffman, 1959) in order to index the salient features of

our ethnographic data on identity formation. (Hull & Zacher, 2007, p. 79,

italics original)

Habitus – In this study, the concept of habitus is central, therefore the definition

of this term is necessarily longer than other key terms. The term is used in a way that is

similar to the way it was used by Bourdieu. Bourdieu described habitus as:

The structures constitutive of a particular type of environment (e.g.

the material conditions of existence characteristic of a class condition)

produce habitus, systems of durable, transposable dispositions, structured

structures predisposed to function as structuring structures, that is, as

principles of the generation and structuring of practices and

representations which can be objectively “regulated” and “regular”

without in any way being the product of obedience to rules, objectively

adapted to their goals without presupposing a conscious aiming at ends or

an express mastery of the operations necessary to obtain them and, being

all this, collectively orchestrated without being the product of the

orchestrating action of a conductor. (Bourdieu, 1972/1977, p. 72, italics

original)

The concept of habitus is intricately connected to the term “field.” Bourdieu explained

the concept of “field” in this way:

18

I define field as a network, or configuration, of objective relations

between positions objectively defined, in their existence and in the

determinations they impose upon their occupants, agents or institutions, by

their present and potential situation (situs) in the structure of the

distribution of power (or capital) whose possession commands access to

the specific profits that are at stake in the field, as well as their objective

relation to other positions. (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 72)

In this way, Bourdieu takes into consideration that people do not work or interact

in a social vacuum, but that social relations are realized within concrete situations. Within

a field, there is an arrangement of social roles, agent and subject positions and a structure

of how those relate. The social positions that are available may be occupied by either

individuals or institutions. There is also an historical process that is accepted by the

participants related to how the available positions are given or taken up. This is not

considered to be a fixed structure but a dynamic form of organization that is negotiated

on an ongoing basis, yet naturalized and durable because of its history of use among a

certain group of people. Thus, in this study, the term habitus refers to the practices that,

over time, a student has adopted as being a natural way for them to act based upon their

position in a social field. “Practices are thus not simply the result of one‟s habitus but

rather relations between one‟s habitus and one‟s current circumstances. (Maton, 2008,

pp. 51-52). Like Bourdieu, my use of the term stresses how the personal expression of

habitus impacts the field, so that the social structures provoke development of

individuals‟ habitus, while at the same time the habitus that individuals bring to a social

action contribute to the constructed field.

Positioning – This term is used by Harré and van Langenhove (1999) as “the study of

local moral orders as ever-shifting patterns of mutual and contestable rights and

19

obligations of speaking and acting” (p. 1). The concept of positioning is a metaphor to

describe how persons are “located” within the social interactions and conversations as

“observably and subjectively coherent participants in jointly produced storylines” (Harré

and van Langenhove, 1999, p. 61).

Practice(s) – For this paper, the term is used in a Bourdieuian sense of being engaged,

social action that is both structured by the field in which it occurs and the histories of the

participants, and is structuring by the ongoing negotiated relations that are being

constructed in real time.

Struggling Reader – Readers who do not demonstrate the ability to read at a level that

would allow them to independently complete grade level work and pass required state

tests at a proficient level.

Organization of Dissertation

This chapter has provided an introduction to the study by providing the theoretical

framework, the significance of the problem, the purpose of the study, the research

questions and key terms.

In chapter 2, I present a review of related literature. In this review I discuss

previous research and writing related to struggling readers, both the development of the

concept as well as research related to pedagogical work with struggling readers. A

portion of this review focuses more specifically on previous research that has been

completed with middle childhood struggling readers.

In chapter 3, I describe the research method, logic-of-inquiry and research design.

I also include details related to the context of the study, the participants, data collection

20

and the role of the researcher. Finally, I describe the method of data analysis and provide

a sample.

Chapter 4 presents collected observations about the context in which the research

was conducted. The findings provide important background information that contributes

to the interpretation of student classroom interactions.

Chapter 5 presents the results of the data analysis. I use discourse analysis to

present observations and interpretations of the literacy interactions that I observed in the

classrooms. I use selected transcripts to give examples of interactions that were observed

repeatedly in the wider corpus of data.

Finally, Chapter 6 is a discussion of findings and explanation of theoretical

constructs that I generated from the data analysis. I present three theoretical constructs

that arise from the data analysis.

21

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

In this chapter I will describe the research literature related to struggling readers. I

begin with research literature concerning the interest and research focus on students who

struggle with reading. Second, I present extant research and theory related to the socially

constructed nature of the category of struggling reader. Related to this issue is research

literature concerning the moral and social consequences for students who are categorized

as struggling readers. Next, I present research literature related to teaching methodologies

directed at struggling readers in general, and middle childhood struggling readers in

particular. As part of this segment I present literature that foregrounds research on peer

group interactions more generally, and peer group interactions of struggling readers more

specifically. Finally, I will connect the extant literature and describe how the current

research may expand and extend current understandings related to the constitution of

struggling readers in the middle childhood grades.

Literature Related to the Research Focus on “Struggling Readers”

From a governmental standpoint, the country is in a reading crisis, based upon the

results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Developers of the

Reading Next program, which targets struggling adolescent readers, stated, “Consistent

with NAEP results, experts in adolescent literacy estimate that as many as 70 percent of

students struggle with reading in some manner, and therefore require differentiated

22

instruction” (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004, p. 8). Moore, Bean, Birdyshaw and Rycik

(1999), writing for the Commission on Adolescent Literacy of the International Reading

Association, stated that a majority of U.S. adolescents could comprehend specific factual

information, but fewer than 5% could extend or elaborate on the meanings of the texts

they read (according to the 1998 NAEP). As a consequence the commission drafted a

position statement on adolescent literacy, outlining six principles about what adolescent

readers deserve (pp. 4-9).

Research related to struggling readers has been conducted to identify text-based

skill gaps (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003; Sanacore, 2002) and more effective teaching strategies

that may remediate struggling readers (Allington, R., 2006; Lyons, 2003; Moore,

Alvermann & Hinchman, 2000; Palumbo & Sanacore, 2009; Slater & Horstman, 2002).

However, a recent longitudinal study of low income students indicated that the reading

success of students was not predicted by either high quality instruction or mastery of text-

based skills (Snow, Porche, Tabors & Harris, 2007). The study indicated that proficiency

in text-based skills was insufficient to predict future reading ability and academic success

in the public school system. It recognized the complexity of students‟ lives and the many

factors that intersected to impact both their continuing interactions with reading and

writing as they moved beyond the early elementary school years, as well as their ability

to meet the various school-based literacy demands. This analysis indicated the ongoing

need for research that examines the social aspects of literacy learning and the relations

which construct categories of students based upon socially established criteria.

23

A number of scholars have challenged the conception of a reading crisis.

Allington (2001) presented data from international comparisons that show American

fourth-graders as ranked second in the world based on statistics from the International

Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (Elley, 1992). In addition, he

reevaluated the interpretations of the NAEP scores, looking at the score trends over time

as well as evaluating the reading difficulty of texts on which students were tested. Both of

those evaluations called into question the conclusions of those that declare a national

reading crisis. Further, the reading crisis is premised upon testing related to a narrow slice

of academic texts. Research has shown that there is a great deal of literacy activity

outside the confines of the narrowly defined school practices that suggests that the

characterizations of the majority of American youth as struggling readers is a myth

(Berliner & Biddle, 1995; Street & Lefstein, 2007).

Even though the existence of a reading crisis is questionable, many school

personnel and families are working from the assumption that one exists. One outcome of

this is public focus on students who have been labeled as “struggling readers” and the

associated attitudes, methodology, interventions and identities that go with the label. The

following section looks at literature from researchers who have examined the social

construction of the category of struggling readers.

Social Construction of Struggling Readers

McDermott and Varenne (1995), Alvermann (2001), and Triplett (2007) contend

that the label “struggling reader” is a culturally constructed identity that is applied to

students within the American school system. As with all socially constructed categories,

24

school language-in-use is implicated as a means by which communities, school personnel

and students mutually assemble cultural norms that outline standards for evaluating

young people, who are then defined as either struggling or not struggling with reading.

Unpacking the larger social and cultural values systems in which the conception of

“struggling reader” is embedded then becomes critical in addressing the educational

needs of students.

My use of the term “struggling reader” in identifying certain students for this

study applies terminology that was used by some of the participants, but which extends

the usage of a term which I argue is socially contentious. In using the term I recognize

that I am implicated in extending a terminology that is used to detrimentally position

students. Though the goal of the study is to interrupt such discourses, I am heuristically

conceding to the common terminology and habits of thoughts in an effort to describe the

social construction of students who are labeled with this term.

The term “struggling reader” is a label that McDermott and Varenne (1995),

Alvermann (2006) and McDermott, Goldman and Varenne (2006) contend is a socially

constructed category that has been naturalized to maintain the existence of social

stratification via (dis)ability groupings: “Culturally and educationally, the United States

specializes in the production of kinds of persons described first by ethnic, racial, and

linguistic lines and second by supposed mental abilities” (McDermott, et al., 2006, p. 12).

The authors explain that the differences that are recognized, which differences count and

under which conditions differences become important are culturally constructed issues.

When a person is not able to do something, they may become enabled or disabled

25

depending upon the responses of those around them. The authors contend that in the

United States, the labels and identities that are ascribed to many students result from the

extremely competitive nature of the educational environment:

In American classrooms, every child not only has to learn, but has to learn

better or faster than his or her neighbors (Varenne & McDermott, 1995).

Hence American education is well organized to make hierarchy out of any

differences that can be claimed, however falsely, to be natural, inherent,

and potentially consequential in school. (McDermott, et al., 2006, p. 12)

Alvermann (2001, 2006) and Triplett (2007) incorporate concepts developed by

McDermott and Varenne to directly address the conception of struggling readers.

Alvermann (2006) applies principles from three approaches to disability that were

presented by McDermott and Varenne (1995) – the deprivation approach, the difference

approach and the culture-as-disability approach to the case of struggling readers.

From the perspective of the deprivation approach, certain people do not have the

requisite abilities to keep up or meet standards and therefore should be dealt with in terms

of their areas of deprivation. Related to struggling readers, Alvermann states:

This way of thinking about culture and the struggling reader buys into the

argument that adolescents develop differently enough that they can be

shown to fall into reliably distinct categories of reader types (e.g,

struggling, not struggling), at least as defined by standardized,

performance-based, or informal tests and teacher observations. There is

usually a stable set of tasks, deemed milestones by a particular culture, to

which all its members must respond if they are to qualify as

developmentally competent on those tasks. Being able to decode,

comprehend, and summarize information would qualify as one such set of

tasks. (Alvermann, 2006, p. 98, italics original)

Educators who subscribe to such an approach would categorize struggling readers as

deprived or deficient, and then offer them more basic, remedial or functional programs

based on the assumption that they do not have what is required to compete.

26

The second approach is the difference approach which McDermott and Varenne

(1995) phrased as, “We have culture, and you have a different one” (p. 335). In this

approach, some students who have different cultural backgrounds would be considered to

be struggling on the basis of the idea that they have developed alternative skills that are

appropriate in their culture, but which do not match the skills required by the dominant

culture. This categorizes some students as struggling since educators are not equipped to

instruct students from varying cultural backgrounds in ways that would allow them to

progress in the appropriate culturally valued ways. The students who are culturally

different are “left behind” because as McDermott and Varenne (1995) pointed out,

“despite a liberal lament that variation is wonderful, those who cannot show the right

skills at the right time in the right format are considered out of the race for the rewards of

the larger culture” (p. 335).

Finally, Alvermann (2006) discusses the third approach, culture-as-disability

approach, which states that “school culture (like other kinds of culture) is a historically

evolved way of doing life. As such, it has norms that implicitly and explicitly teach

students about what is worth working for, how to succeed and who will fall short” (p.

100). For struggling readers, this means that they are deemed incompetent, based on

school standards, but are expected to continue to pursue the same high standards as all

other students. In the case of American public schools, this approach includes

assumptions that 1) literacy is difficult to acquire, so the culture-as-disability approach

gives a rationale for why some people do better than others, not only in literacy but also

in economic and political measures; and 2) that literacy is best learned in classrooms,

27

thus discounting any learning that may happen anywhere else. This allows students‟

literacy skills to be disvalued based upon their failure to work hard as well as discounting

literacy skills that are not part of the school standards. In summary, Alvermann contends

that:

[I]n their effort to raise the bar by implementing high standards – a

noteworthy goal by most people‟s reasoning – schools are promoting

certain normative ways of reading texts that may be disabling some of the

very students they are trying to help. The practice of constructing certain

types of readers as “struggling” is even more problematic when one

considers that many such normative ways of reading are losing their

usefulness, and perhaps to some extent their validity, in the wake of new

media and interactive communication technologies and the changing

literacies they evoke. (Alvermann, 2006, pp. 95-96)

Triplett (2007) expanded on Alvermann‟s arguments and investigated how

students‟ struggles with reading and the label “struggling reader” are a socially

constructed identity or subjectivity created through school literacy contexts, curriculum

and relationships. Her research indicated that students were represented as struggling in

certain contexts, during certain curricular activities and in certain relational situations, but

not in others. Contexts in which students were labeled as struggling readers related to

situations where teachers made assumptions about class issues, when teachers lacked

necessary education to adequately meet students‟ learning needs, or when teachers made

decisions in response to institutional accountability requirements and not in response to

students. Students were considered struggling readers with curriculum that required them

to read at frustration levels, to answer comprehension questions without having received

instruction, and when material had not been discussed. Students were considered to be

struggling readers in relationships with teachers where the teachers did not invite students

28

to talk about the reading or themselves, or in situations where the students felt invisible,

interrupted and not cared for. In contrast, students were not considered struggling readers

when the teachers had necessary knowledge to assist them and the focus was not on

testing, in curriculum that allowed them to read at their instructional level and to

participate in book talks, as well as when teachers were willing to listen to them and tap

into their personal assets. The researcher concluded that the concept of “struggle” and the

label “struggling reader” related much more strongly to the socially constructed relations

than they did to any evaluation of a specified set of skills.

Social and moral implications

If, as the previously cited literature indicates, the category of “struggling reader”

is a social construction, there are social and moral implications for students who become

labeled as struggling readers. The use of literacy as a gatekeeper, the labeling of students

related to literacy ability, and the organization of instruction related to reading and

writing have been implicated as sites where moral issues arise related to literacy that have

social consequences.

Cook-Gumperz (1986) and other researchers in her edited book state that

schooling as an institutional context “frames sociolinguistic practice and determines what

counts as acceptable literate knowledge” (p. 11). She gives a historical account of ways

that literacy has been tied to moral assessments of a person‟s character, and how school

has consequently taken on the role of being a gate-keeper for socioeconomic opportunity.

Schools have institutionalized both the processes that are accepted as the social

transmission of knowledge in a society, and the methods by which a person‟s knowledge

29

is assessed. Thus, it monitors the selectivity process and standardized measures by which

students are ranked and ordered. She asserts that researchers must look at

literacy learning not only as the acquisition of cognitive skills but rather as

a means for demonstrating knowledgeability. Literacy involves a complex

of socio-cognitive processes that are part of the production and

comprehension of texts and talk within interactional contexts that in turn

influence how these literate products will be valued. Psychological and

linguistic theories alone cannot account for the essential conditions for

learning written or spoken language; the value placed on features of

language use, such as coherent argumentation, narrative skill, and

rhetorical style, are part of a cultural inheritance that comes from lives

lived in the company of others that recognize and value these uses. (Cook-

Gumperz, 1986, pp. 4-5)

A claim to a certain identity, status or degree of membership and participation in a

classroom are based upon the varieties of literacy that a person can access and the

performed expertise of designated tasks that have come to have value within the school.

Studies have indicated that classroom interactions are associated with identities that

students take regarding themselves and their role in the classroom.

As introduced in the theoretical framework, the processes of positioning and

labeling have moral implications. Categorizing and labeling some students as inferior to

others has moral and social consequences, both in the classroom and more broadly. As

students become labeled and treated as struggling readers, there are connections to the

ways that they come to view themselves in relation to their peers, as well how they view

themselves as persons. Hall (2007a) studied three adolescents who sought to manipulate

their social environments in order to prevent other students or their teachers from

recognizing them as struggling by resisting public engagement in reading. These students

realized the negative social implications of being considered a struggling reader and

30

resisted being placed into the category. Hall commented on how their efforts to protect

their social status with peers resulted in students losing hope in their ability to become

good readers as well as teachers expressing expectations that viewed the students as

hopeless. Thus, there are moral implications to giving students the label of struggling

readers that have consequences both in and beyond the classroom.

Further, researchers of adolescent struggling readers report that students have

taken on attitudes of hopelessness and anger toward reading that complicate their ability

to function in schools. Researchers report that reading struggles at the adolescent level

have caused emotional pain and social isolation for some students who have experienced

long term ridicule of their reading by peers or been embarrassed by placements in low

track or remedial programs (Alvermann, Hinchman, Moore, Phelps & Waff, 2006; Kos,

1991; Rose, 1989).

Cultural and Linguistic Diversity

Students who are culturally or linguistically non-mainstream are frequently

categorized as struggling readers. August and Hakuta (1997) indicate that student‟s

mainstream English language proficiency, class background and/or ethnic/racial heritage

are given as reasons why students demonstrated low academic achievement. Studies have

indicated, however, that school practices, rather than simply language difficulties, are

implicated in low performance. Researchers have theorized that educators‟ failure to

recognize students‟ diverse ethnicities results in negative academic consequences (Delpit,

1995; Diller, 1999; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Richardson, 2003, 2008).

31

Connected to this is the widespread assumption that difficulties with reading are a

result of poor or inappropriate literacy preparation of students in their homes. This

perspective has been criticized because it fails to recognize that schooling is a cultural

practice (Auerbach, 1989; Taylor, 1993) and consequently the discrepancies in the ways

that students progress in school are a reflection of differences between the cultures of

school and home (Au & Kawakami, 1984; Cazden, 1988; Heath, 1983; Moll, 1988).

Multiple researchers give evidence that diverse students make more progress

with reading if they find characters like themselves in the texts that they read (Bishop,

1992; Harris, 1993; McGinley & Kamberelis, 1996).

Research Literature on Upper Level Struggling Readers

With the current impetus placed on addressing the ostensible crisis of adolescent

struggling readers, a large research corpus is available that addresses interventions that

have been studied as proposed methods to address the perceived reading deficits. A large

portion of the research on struggling readers approaches the task from an “autonomous

model” of literacy (Street, 1993):

[W]e are particularly concerned with the processes that help construct an

„autonomous model of literacy - in which many individuals, often against

their own experience, come to conceptualize literacy as a separate, reified

set of „neutral‟ competencies, autonomous of social context – and with the

procedures and social roles through which this model of literacy is

disseminated and internalized. (Street & Street, 2007, p. 92)

Summaries of the methodologies and strategies that arise from this position are

summarized in Allington (2001, 2006), Gaskin, Gensemer and Six (2003) and Conley, et

al. (2008).

32

My study is approached as a revisioning of the research that has been done based

upon an autonomous model in terms of its implications for social positioning of students

as struggling readers. It works from the “ideological model of literacy” (Street, 1993;

Street & Lefstein, 2007) which is contrasted with the autonomous model:

This model starts from different premises than the autonomous model – it

posits instead that if we were to view literacy as a social practice, not

simply a technical and neutral skill, then it would become apparent that it

is always embedded in socially constructed epistemological principles.

The ways in which people address reading and writing would themselves

be seen as rooted in conceptions of knowledge, identity and being.

Literacy, in this sense, is always contested, both its meanings and its

practices, hence particular versions of it are always „ideological‟, they are

always rooted in a particular world-view and a desire of that view of

literacy to dominate and marginalise others… (Street & Lefstein, 2007, p.

42)

In the present research, I proceed from the ideological model and therefore begin the

discussion by presenting literature that situates my research in the wider corpus of

literature about struggling readers, particularly focusing on research related to the

“fourth-grade slump”. Following that, I summarize other research that has been

conducted using the ideological model of literacy, particularly focusing on research that

has looked at ways that students become positioned as middle childhood or adolescent

struggling readers in classrooms through face-to-face interactions during everyday

events.

Struggling Readers and the “Fourth-grade Slump”

In 1996, Chall, Jacobs and Baldwin proposed the concept of a “fourth-grade

slump” based on their study of thirty low-income students who they studied over a two

year time period. These students demonstrated strong early reading skills, but around

33

fourth-grade began doing more poorly on reading tests, a pattern which continued

through their later school years. In particular the students “slipped” in the areas of word

meaning, word recognition and spelling. It was noted that for these students, oral reading

and silent reading comprehension began to decelerate in grades 6 and 7 (Chall & Jacobs,

2003, p. 14). After identifying the phenomenon, the researchers proposed a series of

causes. One reason they suggested was lack of fluency and automaticity that later

impacted reading comprehension, because less fluent readers read less, and consequently

failed to gain a breadth of vocabulary (Chall, 1983, 1996; Stanovich, 1986). This led to

the suggestion that the reading that was done at higher grade levels was of a different

type (reading for learning instead of learning to read) which disadvantaged low-income

youth who were not familiar with the literary, abstract, academic language. From Chall,

et al.‟s developmental perspective, the failure to progress at a lower stage resulted in

continued and accelerating levels of reading difficulty as a student went forward through

the school years.

Taking up on the conception that the fourth-grade slump was a result of early

difficulties, a series of researchers have studied emerging readers and proposed that

students 1) need to receive adequate preparation for school prior to kindergarten

including development of oral language, and 2) that poor or inadequate instruction for

emerging readers results in older students‟ reading weaknesses (Snow, et al., 2007). As a

way to address the difficulties that Chall suggested, The National Reading Panel met and

identified five areas which required special attention for emerging readers, and which

were identified as critical areas for instruction and intervention in order to prevent later

34

reading difficulties (www.nationalreadingpanel.org). The areas that they identified are:

phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.

Also, as part of the ongoing stream of research related to Chall, et al.‟s (1990)

early research, academic/cognitive language and the development of that language for

school purposes has been acknowledged as a cause of reading struggle, especially for

students who are culturally or linguistically diverse (Wilkinson & Silliman, 2000).

More recently Sanacore and Palumbo (2009) identified three major issues which

they claim cause the fourth-grade slump. They believe the slump is caused by “primary-

level children being immersed in narrative text and, therefore, unprepared for the

challenges of informational text and content-specific vocabulary; lack of available

material children are interested in reading; and limited reading opportunities created by a

focus on high-stakes, test-preparation regimens” (Sanacore & Palumbo, 2009, p. 67).

Secondarily, they identified the following as contributing factors to the existence of the

fourth-grade slump (as well as what they term the “eighth-grade cliff”): 1) “summer

learning loss” which is the loss of academic progress caused by a three-month gap in

education during summers, 2) lack of effectively used academic work time in classes, 3)

large class size, 4) lack of preschool education, 5) ineffective professional development

of teachers and 6) lack of parental support (Sanacore & Palumbo, 2009, pp. 72-73).

Many researchers have approached the dilemma of struggling readers and the

fourth-grade slump from an autonomous model of literacy and continue to test

methodologies that will remediate the students or find the “silver bullet” methodology

that allows all students to read well. Others have recognized the intrinsically social nature

35

of the task of teaching and learning literacy and have conducted research looking at social

dimensions of the experiences of struggling readers. These studies come from

sociolinguisitic, critical literacy, sociocognitive, discourse analytic, and sociohistorical

perspectives. They have been divided based upon similar findings related to struggling

readers.

Identities and Struggling Readers

The research of McCarthey (2001), McCarthey & Moje (2002) and Moje &

Dillon (2006) foregrounds the social impact of student identities in relation to reading.

Their conception of identity and identity formation overlaps with research related to

social spaces and discourse communities that will be presented below. Their research in

both language arts and science classrooms gives evidence that “the space and

relationships of the classroom itself…shape the identities that young people enact,

particularly as different teachers demand or encourage different kinds of disciplinary and

classroom (or student) identities” (Moje & Dillon, 2006, p. 85).

Moje & Dillon (2006) studied students in a high school biology class and a high

school chemistry classroom. They described how concepts of subject positions are

connected to identities, where identities are considered to perspectives of being a certain

kind of person. The researchers showed that certain student identities were demanded in

different educational settings as subject positions were created for students. Second, they

showed that both teachers and students enact identities, based both on the expectations of

the roles they are supposed to be playing and the participant structures that are

established in the institution. McCarthey (2001) contended that students negotiate

36

identities in different contexts and that students develop sets of literate practices that

influence how they relate to different people (p. 104). This led Moje and McCarthey

(2002) to consider literacy and literate practices as tools for representing certain identities

(p. 231). Thus, “struggling reader” is one of the identities that may be offered to students.

The identity carries with it a set of literate practices (or lack of expected literate practices)

that is associated with it depending on the setting. Students may either adopt certain

practices that position them as having the identity of a struggling reader or they may lack

certain practices that position them as struggling.

Hall (2006, 2007a, 2007b) published three articles based upon the same set of

data collected over one school year, using a descriptive case study approach and studying

three middle school struggling girls in three different middle schools – a 12-year-old

sixth grader in a social studies classroom, a 12-year-old seventh grader in a mathematics

classroom, and a 13-year-old eighth grader in science classroom. The results of the three

studies contradicted commonly held beliefs about student identities associated with

struggling readers that characterized them as students with bad attitudes, poor

participation and low motivation. Hall‟s evidence showed that struggling readers may try

to find ways to comprehend text and complete class assignments even though they

recognize themselves to be poor readers. Secondly, student actions that were perceived

by teachers as “unengaged” or “resistant” were likely to be actions that projected a

certain social identity that students valued (a smart student to peers or a competent

student to parents). In particular, the researcher mentioned student silence. She

37

contended that some students remained silent in class to avoid revealing that they were

poor readers to peers, or to appear to be productive readers to teachers or parents.

In his two-year study of high school students, Wortham (2004, 2007) argued that

academic learning is intrinsically connected to identity formation and that the two are not

separate entities. In this case he gave evidence for how teachers and students utilized

reading in content-area classrooms to socially identify and classify students. They used

analogies from curricular themes to identify themselves and others as those kind of

people who illuminated the themes. Though the focus was not specifically on struggling

readers, Wortham‟s study showed how the identities that students were given or adopted

in the classroom impacted their academic progress and social relations.

Teacher/Student Relations and Struggling Readers

Several studies have focused on teacher-student (or tutor-student) relationships as

a significant feature connected with struggling readers. Heron (2003) utilized a

sociohistorical approach to study an inquiry-based summer school program for struggling

readers, specifically studying choice and decision-making roles. Results indicated that

students who engaged in the learning activities and made academic progress were

students who believed that they were positioned by teachers as active contributors and

not as passive listeners. Further, caring and supportive relationships with teachers were

implicated as a critical feature in improving students‟ academic performance.

Worthy, Patterson, Salas, Prater and Turner (2002) studied a special tutoring

program designed to increase the reading performance of middle childhood struggling

readers in grades three to five. The study looked at features that helped students who

38

were labeled as struggling to increase their voluntary reading. Their conclusion was that

the most important influence was the influence of caring tutors. “[T]his study suggests

that a personalized, responsive, relationship-based approach combined with interesting

and appropriate text and student choice, may be the better avenue for older readers who

have struggled for years and have developed extreme resistance to reading” (p. 198).

Texts and Struggling Readers

Researchers have looked at classrooms and adolescent struggling readers,

studying which literacy skills are valued, as well as which performances of the valued

skills count in ways that gain students honor or status, and which ones work to constitute

a student as a struggling reader. O‟Brien (2006) problematized the evaluation of students

as “struggling readers” by examining students‟ competence in multimediating, using texts

that are not considered in most school evaluations of students‟ reading. O‟Brien, Beach &

Scharber (2007) reported on a two-year study of middle school struggling readers,

showing how digital media is an engaging, but disvalued form of literacy, while

traditional literacies “amplified incompetence and a deficit notion of performance” (p.

51) for the participants. They contended:

Adolescents who struggle are defined almost exclusively in terms of their

competence with a limited range of tasks related to reading print. This

print-centric, skills-aligned position has shaped what counts as

competence which, in turn, has negatively shaped struggling adolescents‟

perceptions of ability while restricting their opportunities for engaging in

practices that would change their perceptions. (O‟Brien, Beach &

Scharber, 2007, p. 52)

Thus, the classroom and the associated forms of literacy that control it were filtering

factors through which students were assessed and valued as readers. The types of texts

39

that were valued and used in the classroom had implications for how students‟ literacy

practices were evaluated in terms of reading competency. This study overlaps with the

theme of student identity, since the study was conducted in a remedial classroom. The

researchers noted that student progress was impacted by the “remedial” identity that the

students were given by simply being placed in the class. Some students sought to

dismantle the identity of “struggling” or distance themselves from it, so disengaged

themselves from the activities of the classroom. “In some cases, this disengagement took

the form of withdrawal from active participation in classroom discussions. In other cases,

it took the form of resistance and challenges to the community” (O‟Brien, et al., 2007, p.

68).

Other researchers have indicated that some students are categorized as struggling

readers because the schools define reading based on the use of a narrow range of texts

(Alvermann, 2001, 2006; McCarthey & Moje, 2002; Triplett, 2007), describing the ways

that a definition of reading may unnecessarily position students as deficient. Researchers

who focused on the ways that reading is conceived in relation to text indicated that

schools and teachers have a responsibility to reconsider their definitions of reading to

include texts and literacy practices that more equitably evaluate students‟ skills, and

thereby reevaluate the basis on which students are marked as deficient in reading.

Social Spaces for Struggling Readers

Working from a sociocognitive perspective, Langer (2001) investigated

characteristics of education practice in middle and high schools that allowed for student

reading, writing and English achievement with a focus on social aspects of the

40

classrooms. In a five year study she studied “beating the odds” schools, or those schools

that serviced students who demographically were predicted to perform poorly, but who

were performing well on standardized tests. The practices of the “beating the odds”

schools were contrasted to low-performing schools of similar demographics to draw

conclusions about how classroom practices impacted academic achievement, especially

for low income and minority students. Through the study she identified classroom

practices purported to allow students to achieve “high literacy:” “where students gain not

merely the basic literacy skills to get by, but also the content knowledge, ways of

structuring ideas, and ways of communicating with others that are considered „marks‟ of

an educated person” (Langer, 2001, p. 1040). The study suggests that classroom practices

are implicated as spaces where struggling readers and writers are constructed, and that

changes in those practices versus changes in curriculum or skills practice are necessary

for academic improvement for those who are labeled as low performing.

Zacher (2008a) approached the idea of social spaces from Bourdieuian and

Bakhtinian perspectives in discussing how students in a fifth-grade classroom focused on

social justice education positioned one another in relation to issues of gender, race and

class. She connected those issues to ways that those positionings “were linked to their

struggles for the symbolic „right‟ to speak in literacy events” (p. 13). This study indicated

that even though the curricular content of the class focused on social justice, the

organization of classroom instruction and the teacher‟s lack of awareness of social

maneuvering resulted in the maintenance and extension of social hierarchies among the

students. Zacher (2008a) indicated that, “There is some room for social maneuvering and

41

social change, but in the main, my findings indicate that in such cases, literacy is used not

to emancipate, but to re-order and/or maintain hierarchies” (p. 38). She connected the

hierarchical order of the classroom to larger social inequalities. “[T]hey [students] have

agency, and do make choices, but they may not see the extent to which their choices are

based upon habitus, on their dispositions and existing frames of reference” (p. 39).

Oldfather (2002) conducted an interpretive case study from a sociocultural

perspective and investigated issues of classroom culture that led to some students being

perceived as unmotivated, and therefore struggling readers. The study was conducted in a

fifth/sixth grade classroom and concluded that a variety of social factors combined in

classrooms to position students in ways that were interpreted as “unmotivated.” Students‟

feelings of anger or rebellion toward the learning situation, lack of autonomy in required

tasks, and feelings of anxiousness or incompetence combined to produce classroom

environments that discouraged students from engagement in reading events. She

concluded that “[c]oncerns about students‟ motivational struggles are based not only on

concern for students [sic] learning and achievement, but because it is vitally important to

create nurturing classroom environments that maintain and enhance caring” (Oldfather,

2002, p. 252).

Another group of researchers discussed the interaction of agency and social

spaces in talking about the way that students take on identities in schools and negotiate

the nature of the space, which they termed “discourse communities.” The researchers

described how the social structures of school constrain students to become a certain type

of person, while impacting the nature of the social space. Lewis, Enciso and Moje (2007),

42

and Moje and Lewis (2007) contended that discourse communities are not fixed social

structures, but are constructed by the participants and are negotiated moment by moment

within a particular context. Learning in school, then, involved more than mere presence

in a classroom and required participation, but entailed a more complicated set of social

interactions by which students took on roles that identified their position of acceptance in

the discourse community:

Learning is thus not only participation in discourse communities, but is

also the process by which people become members of discourse

communities, resist membership in such communities, are marginalized

from discourse communities (or marginalize others), reshape discourse

communities, or make new ones. Such membership shapes opportunities

to learn, and, ultimately, learning. (Moje & Lewis, 2007, p. 20)

The degree to which a student is accepted or rejected in their classroom and school

community has implications for both the opportunities that are made available to the

student and how they develop relations with those around them.

Alvermann (2001) and Mahar (2001) both argued that the limitations of the social

positions of students that are available to them in school result in students being

positioned as struggling readers. Alvermann described a case study on a student who she

called Grady. She wrote from the understanding that the social structures and available

roles in school had come together to position Grady as a struggling reader. She stated:

Culture arranged for Grady to take up the position of struggling reader by

institutionalizing a set of school-related literacy tasks on which Grady was

measured and found to come up short. In taking up the position of

struggling reader, Grady assumed an identity kit (Gee 1996, 1999)

complete with ways of believing, thinking, acting, and speaking that made

it possible for him to recognize (and be recognized by) other readers like

him in the Discourse of school.

43

Mahar (2001) studied the lives of two seventh-grade students, “both of whom

were marginalized by the academic and social aspects of school” (p. 200). By working to

change the social positions and opportunities that were made available to the students in

her class, she was able to track both attitudinal and academic changes that allowed those

students to move to more socially and academically advantageous positions. Thus,

researchers working from this theoretical perspective concluded that social structures and

limitations in the positions that were offered to students resulted in students being

positioned as a struggling reader. Though each writer recognized the potential for

students to demonstrate personal agency in changing their positions, there was a strong

emphasis on the ways that institutional assumptions and organization created a social

position to which certain students were assigned. They challenged the inequitable and

hegemonic position of those assumptions and pointed out the implications such

institutional structures could have in the lives of students both in and beyond reading

classrooms.

Classroom Discursive Practices and Struggling Readers

Poole (2008) used a discourse analytic method to investigate the interactional

differentiation of struggling readers in mixed-ability reading groups. Since mixed-ability

groupings had been suggested as way of grouping that would be more beneficial to

struggling readers than homogeneous grouping, she sought to understand how low-

performing students would fare in heterogeneous groups. Poole (2008) concluded that the

factors that had been deemed to be detrimental to student progress in homogeneous

groupings (less reading, more interruptions, shortened turns at reading) were also present

44

in heterogeneous groupings. In addition, the social interactions that had been implicated

in interactional differentiation and stigmatization of low-ability students in homogeneous

groupings, was also observed in mixed-ability groups. Poole stated, “The data analyzed

in this study…suggest that the heterogeneous group context can also be a powerful

setting for identifying and maintaining a student hierarchy vis-à-vis reading ability” (p.

245). The study concluded that changing in grouping of students in reading groups was

an insufficient method to address the issues that socially position some students as

struggling readers. In addition, for the two struggling readers that Poole observed, simply

being engaged in reading groups with higher performing students failed to meet their

instructional needs in ways that produced progress in reading. Though this study is

included with research on discursive practices, this overlaps with the category of peer

interaction, since the data collection and analysis focused on the interactions between

peers in a reading group.

Related to positioning of struggling readers, Collins (1994) described discursive

practices in teacher-led small group discussions of students who had been labeled

“resistant” readers in two urban classrooms. The researcher used analysis of participant

structures to give evidence that the struggling readers he observed were sufficiently

competent in classroom discourse structures to actively participate in reading instruction,

but chose to participate intermittently. The study gave convincing evidence that the focal

students were not academically deficient, nor were they unaware of the social practices

that would allow them to gain full participation in classroom interactions. Instead, the

45

author contended, students selected when and to what extent they would engage in

assigned literacy activities.

Fairbanks and Broughton (2003) conducted research on six adolescent girls and

the classroom discourse in one sixth-grade language arts class. The study gave evidence

that the way students negotiated and responded to aspects of classroom culture, such as

expectations and classroom regulations, served to situate them with regard to how they

were perceived as readers. Using the same data set, Fairbanks and Ariail (2006)

employed theories of positioning and identity to identify how students used (or were

unable to use) cultural and social resources in their encounters with school literacy. The

researchers concluded that teachers and administrators needed to become aware of

cultural models that serve to position students, especially the cultural model that focuses

on perceived social deficits of students, and thereby reduces expectations about their

academic potential. They recommended the need for institutions to shift the models in

order to identify and utilize students‟ strengths as well as weaknesses as a way of

allowing students to develop embodied capital as a resource for literacy progress.

Peer Interactions and Struggling Readers

A number of researchers have investigated the social practices of school-aged

children that establish social hierarchies through peer interactions. They foreground the

ways that children use semiotic resources including language and embodied actions to co-

construct their social and moral order and to “look at how children, in their naturally

occurring peer groups, become agents of their own socialization” (Goodwin & Kyratzis,

2007, p. 280).

46

Researchers have shown that power relations are constructed in peer interactions

by some children claiming authority over others, or negotiating in ways that categorize

and label peers differentially. This occurs through the practices of claiming superior roles

in play (Goodwin, 1990; Sheldon, 1996), instructing others on the appropriate ways of

performing actions (Evaldsson, 2004, Goodwin, 1995, 2001), nominating and/or

maintaining the frame of play (Sheldon 1996, Kyratzis, Marx & Wade, 2001, Kyratzis,

2007), cooperatively assessing and labeling one another (Goodwin, 2007), and

determining roles and controlling access to participation (Evaldsson, 2003; Goodwin,

2001, Kyratzis, 2007). Evaldsson (2007) studied the ways in which preadolescent girls

developed a system of morality that was used to evaluate one another through blame

allocation techniques including “complaints, criticism, accusations, authoritative registers

and genres” (Evaldsson, 2007, p. 400). She argued that, relational talk between peers was

not a neutral interaction, but was rendered by the students as “an activity for indexing

inappropriate behaviors, strengthening social relations of power, and justifying social

exclusion.” (Evaldsson, 2007, p. 377)

In a review of studies “in sociology, sociolinguistics, and linguistic anthropology

that examine children talking to, and socializing, other children in everyday activities in

their peer and friendship groups” (Kyratzis, 2004, p. 25), Kyratzis concluded that

multiple studies identified ways in which children construct their own norms and valued

identities within their peer groups.

[N]arrative, speech stylization, and pragmatic skills…are deployed by

children strategically as resources to help them organize their social

worlds. With its rich opportunities for positioning through its evaluative

dimension, through its dramaturgical (character speech stylization)

47

opportunities, and through its potential for arrangements of participation

frameworks, narrative affords children a rich repertoire of resources to

utilize in their exploration of possible identities, as well as in their own

construction of the hierarchical social organization of their peer group.

(Kyratzis, 2004, p. 641)

Griswold (2007) extended these observations by presenting evidence about ways

that middle childhood girls established authority from both “above and below” by

showing how some students take on subordinate roles prior to claims of authority by

peers. She identified ways that some of the participants constructed subordinated

positions through the use of some or a combination of the following practices: verbal

actions that appoint others as authoritative; bodily orientations (including crouching and

proximity); diverted eye gaze; requests for help or claims of helplessness; invocation of a

peer as knowledgeable; acquiescence to a peer‟s proposal when it is not personally

satisfactory; and withdrawal from the interaction to establish positions of authority for

their playmates. Taken together this set of studies utilizes the analysis of embodied

language practices to show how peer group interactions are sites where social power and

position are negotiated and enacted. This highlights how activities among children that

are conceived as play or school are also sites of social negotiation. In a circular fashion,

the social relations that are negotiated and the positions to which students are assigned

construct the interactional and learning opportunities for the participants. The language

practices influence the development of social relations and are an integral part of

activities in which children interact with one another and establish moral and social order.

A second set of literature focuses more particularly on literature about struggling

readers that focused on peer interactions. Though the studies overlap with previous

48

categories, they represent the few pieces of research that examined the role of peer

interactions in relation to the concept of struggling readers.

Finders (1997) studied middle school girls and introduced the concept of “literate

underlife,” defined as “those practices that refuse in some way to accept the official view,

practices designed and enacted to challenge and disrupt the official expectations.” (p. 24)

She complicated conceptions of classroom discourse and procedural display by

describing unauthorized practices of middle school students that impacted the students‟

social positioning and academic performances. She stated:

Out of sight and out of control of those in authority, literate

underlife created a space for girls to secure social roles, to present a self

less controlled by adults in authority. The need for literate underlife is

perhaps greatest during early adolescence, a time when young people are

breaking away from adult control trying out new adult roles for

themselves. Suspended between childhood and adulthood, the girls in this

study turned to literate underlife to negotiate between competing sets of

expectations. (Finders, 1997, p. 24)

Porter (2005) examined the participation of two fourth-grade struggling readers in

a literature discussion group focusing on the student‟s turns at talk, length of talking and

comparison of contributions to other students in the group who were considered good

readers. The researcher concluded that students who had been labeled as struggling

maintained a high level of participation and “were capable of participating as active,

thoughtful readers in a literature discussion group” (Porter 2005, p. 35). She suggested

that the small group, highly dialogic environment provided the peer support to allow

struggling readers to make academic progress and more effectively use the literacy

resources that they brought to the group. The implication was that increased participation

would translate to improved reading performance.

49

Clark (2006) took a critical approach in researching middle childhood struggling

readers. The researcher described peer interactions in literature circle discussions in a

Midwestern urban classroom where the students had been identified as low achieving.

The researcher identified how students differentially positioned each other by gender

through discursive power moves. This study stands in contrast to the findings of Porter

(2005) in suggesting that peer groups may have negative effects on struggling readers by

creating or confirming subject positions among peers for struggling readers.

Finally, as part of a more extensive investigation of a fifth/sixth grade classroom

and the way that literacy was complexly interwoven with social acts, Lewis (2001)

focused on the social interactions of peer-led literature discussions. As part of that

analysis she showed how students used differences in reading ability to establish

differential status and social power. Discursive construction of ability and student-

negotiated procedures related to book selection enabled students to publicly rank one

another based on reading ability. Though the teacher allowed students a certain amount of

choice in choosing books and organizing the activities, Lewis (2001) pointed out that

“students are quick to „read‟ the discourse and position themselves within it…To some

degree, then, the students work with the teacher to group themselves according to ability”

(p. 90).

Connections of Extant Literature to the Study

Previous research on struggling readers has generally proceeded from the

autonomous model of literacy and connected students‟ reading difficulties with

inadequate learning of particular reading skills. Consequently, the majority of previous

50

research literature reported on experiments that have tested teaching methodologies

designed to remediate the reading deficits. In this study, I join others who have moved to

an ideological model of literacy, seeking to approach literacy as a social practice and not

as a technical, neutral or print-centric skill. Research of this type acknowledges that the

ways in which people address literacy are rooted in conceptions of knowledge, identity

and being, and that the study of reading requires an in depth study of language-in-use.

A relatively small number of studies have focused on social interactions that

impacted student‟s literacy learning. From those studies it has been shown that the

identities into which students are positioned or that they adopt and enact impact academic

progress and social relations. Related to this, struggling readers made better progress

when they perceived that their teachers and tutors cared about them as individuals and

expected them to make progress. The texts of school represent only a small slice of the

literacies that are used by children. The assessment process that establishes membership

in the category of “struggling reader” does not adequately or accurately evaluate the

myriad ways that students may show themselves proficient in reading, nor consider the

multimediated forms of literacy. Further, studies indicate that the structuring of social

space is an important feature in the positioning of some students as struggling readers.

Institutional structures of school establish hierarchical, hegemonic systems which favor

some students over others. The discourses that surround the curriculum, procedures and

relationships in school create social spaces that position some students in negative ways.

A group of researchers have focused on the study of discourses in policies and the

discourses of teachers in an effort to recognize and interrupt processes that negatively

51

impact students. A few researchers have examined student talk as a window into social

interactions that impact literacy learning.

This study picks up the strand of studies that examine the everyday lives of

students to recognize how the discourse in the classroom may position them as struggling

readers. I seek to examine the time period that has been implicated in the literature that

suggests the fourth-grade slump as a time frame in which students shift their academic

trajectories to one that limits their academic opportunities. Proceeding from what is

known about institutional and teacher discourses that position students, this study will

expand on the previous literature by focusing on student-to-student talk and interactions.

This study is an effort to continue the conversations that have begun about struggling

readers and to study the social interactions of classrooms to identify processes that impact

students‟ academic progress, social opportunities and emotional well-being.

52

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction

In this chapter, I begin by 1) outlining the research design. I follow with 2) the

logic-of-inquiry to explain why the research was designed and conducted as it was and to

discuss the advantages and limitations of that design. Third, I discuss my role as a

researcher. Finally, I present background and demographic information about the study

including 4) the context of the study, 5) the participants in the study, 6) data collection

procedures, and 7) data analysis procedures.

Research Design

The study was conducted over a period of two school years and included

participant observation, video- and audio-recording, interviews and collection of student

work. The pilot study was conducted in October and November 2007 and involved

observation of one third- and one fourth-grade Language Arts or Science Unit

(approximately one hour per day per class) for one week, and subsequent video-recording

of the classroom daily for the remainder of the unit (two to four weeks depending upon

the class and subject area). Copies of student work from the unit were collected. Videos

were indexed and interactional processes used during literacy events were identified and

listed on an ongoing basis. The original research questions focused on the “fourth grade

slump” with the intent of observing student-teacher interactions. However, preliminary

data analysis suggested that rather than a focus on reading instruction that occurred

53

between a teacher and students, it was important to focus on peer-to-peer reading and

literacy events. The initial data analysis suggested that peer literacy events were a crucial

social space where students positioned one another and developed a reading habitus.

From the corpus of videos, episodes were selected that had events where students

utilized reading and writing to negotiate social position. Students and teachers who were

in the selected segments were interviewed. The students and teachers were asked to

watch the video excerpts and discuss their perspectives on the recorded events. The

interviews were transcribed and coded based upon the themes that had been identified as

topics of interest. From this initial analysis, I selected the topic of peer-to-peer

interactions with a focus on students who were identified as “struggling readers” as the

focus of additional data collection.

In the classrooms at Mapleton Elementary School, students who struggled with

reading and fit the description of students who Chall, et al. (1990) had described in their

explanation of a fourth-grade slump were labeled as “struggling readers.” These were

students who did not have identified, severe disabilities that would predict difficulty with

reading. When tested with reading inventories, they had attained basic reading skills and

could read grade level material. However, they were not able to keep up with classroom

work that required independent reading and were regarded as poor readers.

In March 2008 and May 2008 additional videos of the target third- and fourth-

grade classrooms were made, focusing on peer-to-peer interactions in literacy events

where struggling readers were involved. In order to capture student talk in small groups

that would not be audible on the videos, additional audio recorders were placed in the

54

middle of the groups. These were followed by interviews of students and teachers who

had been involved in the taped interactions.

During June 2008, two school district administrators were interviewed regarding

their perspectives on reading and reading challenges within the school district. Because

the school district is quite small, for the purposes of maintaining confidentiality, the exact

positions of the administrators are not identified. In May 2009 a third administrator was

interviewed.

In the 2008-2009 school year, a second set of videos were made in one fourth-

and one fifth-grade classroom. Some of the student participants were the same as in year

one, and the fourth-grade teacher was the same. Because of class assignments, there were

a number of new students involved. During October, 2008, additional video and

audiotapes of class sessions in Language Arts and Science were made of the selected

classes, and student and teacher interviews were conducted in the same manner as the

previous year.

Parents of the eight struggling readers were asked for interviews. Only one parent

agreed to be interviewed. In addition, interviews were conducted with five teachers in

grades Kindergarten to Grade 2. The purpose of the additional interviews was to gain a

wider set of background information concerning the family and community perspectives

on reading and literacy, as well as to aid in the interpretation of the interactions that

occurred during close analysis of students‟ micro-level interactions.

Historical information about the community and school, as well as demographic

information about the community was collected from the local library and public

55

government sources. I conducted a limited linguistic analysis of the local dialect with

members of the community.

Triangulation of multiple types of data, and multiple persons‟ perspectives was

used to create validity. I transcribed video- and audio-recordings, which the participants

then reviewed. Students and teachers watched selected video segments and were

interviewed related to their perspective of what happened during the segment. During

interviews, students were questioned about their literacy habits and attitudes. Student

products from the literacy activities that were video-recorded were compared to oral

statements and interviews.

The timeline below gives an overview of the sequence of data collection. Details

regarding video- and audio-data and participants will be included in future sections.

PILOT STUDY

August 2007 – March 2008

FOCUSED STUDY

March 2008-August 2009

Table 1. Timeline

Classroom

Observations

Grades 3 & 4

9/17-9/26/07

Adminis-

trator

Interviews

(2) 6/08

Student

Interviews

(15)

5/12-

5/27/08

Video-

recording

#3

4th

+ 5th

9/30-

10/15/08

Video-

recording

#2

3rd

+ 4th

4/7-5/27/08

Video-

recording #1

3rd

+ 4th

Grades

9/26-11/2/07

Student

Interviews

(11)

2/7-4/2/08

Teacher

Interviews

-Harper

-King

11/27 +

12/2/07

Student

Interviews

(4)

5/8/09

Teacher

Interviews

-Harper

-King

-Johnson

5/5-5/8/09

Teacher

Member

Check

3/12/08

3

K-3

Teachers,

Administra-

tor and

Parent

Interviews

(7)

5/7-5/30/09

Video-

recording #4

4th

5/7-5/19/09

56

Logic of Inquiry

This qualitative study is based upon principles of microethnographic discourse

analysis in which empirical field-based research is central in the design, and in which the

focus of the study arises from the data. Initial data collection centered on the examination

of conversations that teachers and students had with each other in middle childhood

classrooms, focusing on language arts instruction and science instruction, with the goal of

gaining insights into how instructional conversations were implicated in increasing

reading comprehension.

Discourse Analysis

The focus of this study is upon the constitution of a “struggling reader habitus”

especially as it is constituted in peer interactions in the classroom. To study the social

interactions that occurred and which resulted in a socially recognized habitus that

impacted a student‟s academic progress, it was necessary to employ research

methodology that allowed for the analysis of communications and interactions. Discourse

analysis has been developed as a way of studying language-in-use that gives evidence for

how social relations are constructed and negotiated, and how people may come to value

themselves and others differentially on the basis of their interactions. In classrooms, it

may show how the school practice of literacy is implicated in the process.

Discourse analysis involves systematically looking at “communicative action in

the medium of language” (Johnstone, 2008, p. 2) to understand how participants are

making meaning of an interaction. Gee (2008) describes discourse analysis as the “theory

and method for studying how language gets recruited „on site‟ to enact specific social

57

activities and social identities…In the process, we will see that language-in-use is

everywhere and always „political‟” (p. 1). The methodology typically involves

“examining aspects of the structure and function of language in use” (Johnstone, 2008, p.

4). The particular focus of the discourse analysis for this research was the way that

language and interaction around literacy (speech, reading, writing) was implicated in

social relations that impacted a student‟s successful navigation through school.

Language is at the center of what happens in classrooms, and therefore reflective

of the layered and complex interactions. Bloome, et al. (2005), state that “[l]anguage is

both the object of classroom lessons (e.g. learning to read, write and use academic

discourse) as well as the means of learning (e.g., through classroom discussions and

lectures, reading and writing)” (p. xvi). The study of classroom interactions in the form

of language and its associated semiotics, then, affords an analytical method to see how

social interactions are being constructed and maintained, as well as how this impacts

student learning. This methodology emphasizes the social aspects of literacy learning,

and thus provides evidence for how social relations are constituted in a classroom as well

as the impact of those relations on individuals.

An additional perspective that has informed this study is Critical Discourse

Analysis (CDA). This methodology is a subset of discourse analysis that focuses on

power relations and how those are instantiated through forms and functions of language

use. Rogers (2004) indicates that:

researchers who use CDA are concerned with a critical theory of the social

world, the relationship of language and discourse in the construction and

representation of this social world, and a methodology that allows them to

describe, interpret, and explain such relationships. (p. 3)

58

The methodology works to analyze language form and function connections that reveal

how certain ways of being are privileged over others:

A critical discourse analyst‟s goal is to study the relationships between

language form and function and explain why and how certain patterns are

privileged over others. In the sense that all systems of meaning are linked

to socially defined practices that carry more or less privilege and value in

society, such exploration is also an exploration into power and language.

(Rogers, 2004, p. 4)

This perspective adds to the wider field of discourse analysis, by foregrounding the use of

language that impacts social relations on the local level and connects that to wider social

contexts. The discussion of students represented as “struggling readers” incorporates

issues of social politics as students are hierarchically valued and labeled. The focus on

power relations afforded by critical discourse analysis addresses the inherent social

inequities that must be attended to in a discussion of institutional and interactional labels.

Fairclough (2003) cited Foucault in discussing the multiple systems that interact

to constitute social relations, which signals the consequent features that need analysis:

These practical systems stem from three broad areas: relations of control

over things, relations of action upon others, relations with oneself. This

does not mean that each of these three areas is completely foreign to the

others. It is well known that control over things is mediated by relations

with others; and relations with others in turn always entails relations with

oneself, and vice versa. But we have three axes whose specificity and

whose interconnections have to be analyzed: the axis of knowledge, the

axis of power, the axis of ethics…How are we constituted as subjects of

our own knowledge? How are we constituted as subjects who exercise or

submit to power relations? How are we constituted as moral subjects of

our own actions? (Foucault, 1994 as cited in Fairclough, 2003, p. 28)

Analysis of the classroom interactions focused on the three axes, and the theoretical

constructs that were produced sought to address the ways that classroom interactions of

59

struggling readers reflected sometimes conflicting conceptions of what knowledge is,

who is in control and what should and should not be done.

In relation to the theoretical framework, the analysis of multiple discourses

pertains to this study. First, the field of the classroom and the discourses in which it is

institutionally embedded needed to be analyzed to gain understanding of the social

positions and values that constrain or enable students to relate in particular ways and

which establish possible social positions for students to take up:

Critical for any consideration of educational achievement is the need to

see the practices of speaking and interaction within the wider context of

the educational assumptions and ideologies held by members of the

society (Gee 1996). That is, we must provide for the linking of explanation

at the level of policy and institutional process with the understanding at

the more detailed level of daily educational practice. As in sociological

research on the transmission of knowledge, critical-discourse analysis

began to deal with factors of power, economic resources and occupational

and class division within the broader society (Fairclough, 1996;

Blommaert, 2005). How these tensions are transmitted as school-based

learning and manifest themselves through classroom communication is a

central theme of Bourdieu‟s classic work on education and cultural capital

(Bourdieu and Passeron 1977). (Gumperz & Cook-Gumperz, 1986, p. 73)

Discourse analysis may serve to analyze classroom discourses that reveal how

students position one another in classroom literacy events. The close analysis of form and

function of language and its related semiotics in face-to-face, real time interactions

between students gives evidence for how a student becomes positioned and takes up on

that positioning, as well as how the participants invoke broader social structures as part of

the construction of their school identities. Zacher (2008b), another researcher who

studied how students positioned one another around literacy events, described her

analysis of fifth-graders‟ interactions around multicultural literature, and she noted the

60

ways that student-to-student talk revealed a struggle for social position that impacted

their academic performance:

At stake in these struggles was “the very representation of the social

world” (Bourdieu, 1985: 723); students negotiated the right to categorize

themselves and others, as well as the right to claim membership in

different categories and identify themselves with certain groups of people,

based on the weight and volume of their symbolic capital in a variety of

school contexts. These were undertaken as students and teachers jointly

constructed definitions of otherness, of difference, drawing on ideas and

ideologies from the school‟s multi-cultural curriculum. (Zacher, 2008b,

pp. 252-253)

Also used as part of the analysis of classroom discourse that was conducted for

this study were principles that arose from research that foregrounds social interactions

related to language from a linguistic anthropological perspective. In particular, Agha

(2007) focused on the connection between language and social models of conduct. Agha

contends that models of conduct act as points of reference for social behavior, even when

people‟s conduct does not conform to the model. He asserts the materiality of language

and other signs that serve as artifacts, or embodied representations through which human

beings negotiate their social relations:

It is therefore all the more important to see that utterances and discourses

are themselves material objects made through human activity –made, in a

physical sense, out of vibrating columns of air, ink on paper, pixels in

electronic media – which exercise real effects upon our senses, minds, and

modes of social organization. (Agha, 2007, p. 3)

Thus, he contends that careful study of the ways that people make and unmake patterns of

relating gives insight into conceptions of culture and society.

The choice to use discourse analysis as the method for analyzing the interactions

of students in classrooms foregrounds the study of students‟ language and related

61

semiotic signs which they use to create and recreate discourses and perspectives on the

world. In addition, language-in-use serves as a conduit through which students position

one another and/or take up certain perceptions of themselves as readers and persons. This

study works from the warrant that discourses are meaning making interactions, and that

individuals who are interacting are in a process of continual negotiation of meaning

making. In the course of any classroom interaction, language is implicated related to the

content of the interaction, the language being used for the interaction as well as the

manipulation of literacy skills in ways related to the positions of the persons who are

interacting.

Microethnographic Discourse Analysis

More specifically, the study was conducted using microethnographic discourse

analysis (Bloome, et al., 2005). This method “combines attention to how people use

language and other systems of communication in constructing language and literacy

events in classrooms with attention to social, cultural, and political features” (Bloome, et

al., p. xv). The methodology foregrounds the study of the daily life in classrooms, but

connects the micro-level interactions to the macro-level interactions of the institutions

and communities in which the students and teachers interrelate:

We take a strong view that the daily life of teachers and students in

classrooms is not to be taken for granted, homogenized under broad

generalizations, or collapsed into deterministic processes of social and

cultural reproduction. For us, classrooms are complex places where

teachers and students create and re-create, adopt and adapt, and engage in

a full range of human interactions. Teachers and students are viewed as

active agents. (Bloome, et al., 2005, p. xvi)

62

In this case, the methodology allowed me to look at students as persons in interaction as

the focus of study, rather looking at institutional or classroom processes or patterns as the

primary influencer of behavior. At the same time, knowledge of the practices and values

of the school as an institution and the students‟ community informed the study. I looked

at peer-to-peer literacy events and examined the language that was used from multiple

perspectives. Bloome, et al., 2005, describe the perspectives from which a

microethnographic discourse analysis takes place by stating,

microethnographic analysis of classroom literacy events requires that one

examines how written language is being used, by whom, when, where, and

for what purposes, along with what is being said and written, by whom and

how, and what import the uses of spoken and written language have to the

people in the event and to the conduct and interpretation of other events.

Such analysis requires consideration of how the event is located in time

and place (both geographically and socially), what is brought into the

event (e.g., its history, what previous events are invoked, what common

knowledge is assumed, cultural practices, and literacy practices), what

happens in the event (how people act toward and react to each other), the

particularities of the event (what makes the event distinct from other

events of its type in similar situations), and what social significance and

consequence the people in the event assign to the event as a whole and to

what happens in the event. (Bloome, et al., 2005, p. 56)

The social relations between participants that were examined included both interchanges

that were authorized by the teacher, and those that were exchanged between students, but

that were outside the realm of “official school business.” Some of these interactions are

unauthorized or sub-rosa interchanges (Gilmore, 1987; Sterponi, 2007), but some are

interchanges that happened during teacher authorized collaborative learning structures

such as partner and small group work. Thus part of the analysis involved making

connections between the literacy events and the cultural and literacy practices that frame

the events.

63

Along with a focus on language interactions, microethnographic discourse

analysis utilizes extensive description of the context and participants as background for

data analysis. Ethnographers look to extensively portray the lives of those they study in

what Geertz (1973, 1983) has called “thick description.” However, microethnographic

discourse analysis looks to describe not only the patterns of participants‟ lives, but the

unfolding creation and construction of the relations that characterize student activity:

“Methodologically speaking, what we are after is more than thick description…we are

after thick description in motion” (Bloome, et al., 2005, p. 52) This expands the focus on

talk and print text to include a wider set of actions that are related to literacy such as

posture, eye gaze and prosody as well as the wider context of the participants. The

inclusion of these features seeks to provide a more complete perspective about the

situated experiences of the students, and offer more complete evidence for the

interpretations of their interactions.

The cultural and literacy practices of a school and classroom are important to this

description, but students and teachers may not be considered to be puppets that are at the

mercy of the system in which they find themselves: “They may modify, adapt, and

transform those cultural practices, or they may import cultural practices from other social

institutions and from other domains of cultural life – more like semi-improvisational

theater than a rigidly scripted drama” (Bloome, et al., 2005, p. 52). Analysis of the ways

that students improvise with their classmates provides a window into the social workings

of the literacy events. Thus, the study used ethnographic procedures in an effort to

describe the naturalistic interactions of students in their classroom and community, while

64

using microethnographic discourse analysis to study the moment-by-moment micro-level

interactions of students. The combination serves to connect particular and unique events

with the larger field in order to consider the historical and situated nature of the

interactions that were constructed.

Context of the Study

The research site for this study was one third-grade, one fourth-grade and one

fifth-grade classroom at a public school in a rural Midwestern town. The observations

were conducted during regularly occurring class events that were part of the ongoing,

teacher-planned instruction of the classrooms.

The Mapleton-Rockford Local School District (pseudonym) is a consolidation of

the populations of two villages, Mapleton and Rockford (pseudonyms). Their website

describes it as “a small, rural public school district.” The district has one K-12 school,

with grades K-5 designated as Mapleton Elementary School and led by an elementary

school principal, grades 6-8 designated as Mapleton Middle School, and grades 9-12

designated as Mapleton High School. The middle and high schools are administered by

one principal. The average daily student enrollment for the 2006-2007 school year was

612 according to the Ohio State Report Card. Of that population, 94.1% were designated

as White, 4.3% were Multi-Racial, 13.7% were economically disadvantaged and 12.9%

were students with disabilities. Other populations were not reported because the numbers

were so small.

According to the 2000 census, the population of Mapleton was 3,828 with 681

households and 420 families. The village consists of an area of 1.1 square miles. The

65

median income for the village was $44,234 with 5.4% of families and 13.8% of the

population below the poverty line. The racial makeup of the village was designated as

95.06% White, 1.99% African-American, 0.39% Native American, 0.81% Asian, 0.03%

Pacific Islander, 0.31% from other races, 1.41% Multi-racial and 0.94% Hispanic or

Latino.

Rockford had a population of 179 with 71 households and 51 families residing

there. The village covers 0.2 square miles. The median income was $42,679 with 7.1% of

families and 5.4% of the population below the poverty line. The racial makeup of the

village was designated as 88.83% White, 1.68% African-American, 1.12% Native

American and 8.38% Multi-racial.

Choice of Research Site

The elementary school where research was conducted was chosen because it was

in a rural setting and because students that attended there represented a variety of socio-

economic and dialect groups. I selected the middle childhood grades three, four and five

because previous research (Chall, et al., 1990) had documented this time frame as the

grade-bracket when many students began to fall behind in their academic reading

abilities. Reading progress at this point has been connected with the beginning of a

trajectory leading to high school success or failure (Snow, et al., 2008). Since rural and

particularly Appalachian students in Ohio drop out of high school at an above-average

rate on par with urban populations, I chose to do research in a rural school, seeking to

identify reasons for this decline.

66

Upon selection of the research school, the elementary school principal asked for

teachers who would be willing to participate in the research study. From the volunteers,

the principal selected one teacher from each grade. The student participants were selected

based upon their previous assignment to the class of participating teachers, as well as the

student‟s and family‟s willingness to sign parental consent and student assent forms.

Choice of Research Context

The original research topic involved studying classroom conversations as a means

to study reading comprehension. Research (Gee, 1996; Hymes, 1974; Tannen, 1981;

Wells, 2000) has suggested that conversations related to texts that students read are

implicated in reading comprehension. The purpose of this research was to study

classroom conversations to determine factors that may positively or negatively impact

students‟ reading comprehension of higher level reading material. Since I wanted to study

conversations that were impacting students‟ reading comprehension as it was naturally

occurring, research was conducted on regularly occurring classroom interactions.

Prolonged and varied field experiences have been suggested as ways for

improving the credibility of qualitative research. The research context was selected as

one where the research participants were willing to engage in research over a period of

years, in order to allow me to develop the focus of the study from the data. The data was

collected over two school years and repeated video recording in the classroom served to

capture a variety of interactions that occurred as opposed to examining singular events.

Two different content areas (Language Arts and Science) were selected as contexts for

video recording in order to record and describe conversations that took place in the

67

natural setting of the classrooms and authentic classroom talk that surrounded a range of

texts. The extended times in capturing a unit of instruction, as well as video recording at

different points in the school year, and video recording students under the teaching of

different teachers was designed to provide more ecologically valid descriptions.

Gaining Entrance

The school involved as the research site for this study is located near a university,

and has had an ongoing mutual relationship in which both the university and school

benefit from shared resources. As a former teacher at Mapleton Middle and High School,

and as a faculty member of the university responsible for placing student interns in field

experiences at the school, I had personal contacts with the administrators in the school

district. In the summer of 2007, I approached the superintendent of schools to request

permission to conduct research at the elementary school. After discussion with the

elementary school principal, both gave permission, and they were particularly interested

in my research on reading comprehension, since the elementary school had consistently

fallen below the excellent level on the state report card. The principal asked for teacher

volunteers, and assigned the research classrooms in which I could conduct research.

I approached the teachers and explained the focus and methods for my research.

Since I had been a teacher for many years and was known in the school community

because of my previous teaching position in the upper grades, the teachers welcomed me

into their classrooms. I made myself available as a participant observer, to assist the

teachers or students in any ways that I could be helpful. During the videotaping, I

frequently answered questions, looked up information on the computer to answer student

68

questions, or was asked to add to conversations. Students quickly accepted my presence

as “another teacher in the room” and treated me in that way. Initially, students were very

aware of the camera, and throughout the recording, some students made a point to make

faces or go out of their way to pass in front of the camera and make comments,

particularly during transition points between activities. However, over time students

became accustomed to my presence and the surveillance of the camera, and there was

less evidence of students “performing” in ways that were different from the ways that

they acted when the camera was not present.

Gaining the confidence of the students during interviews proved highly difficult.

Students tended to give very brief responses to my questions, and only sometimes would

expand their answers with prompting. They tended to give “pat answers,” and I can only

assume that they replied in ways they thought I wanted them to respond. Some of the

students were interviewed several times. With time and interaction, those students began

to give more complete and candid answers to the interview questions. Also, interviewing

students in groups for video feedback tended to elicit more student talk and thus provided

more helpful information about how students understood their roles and relations in the

events.

Participants

Teacher Participants

Five teachers participated in the classroom observation portion of this study: one

third-grade teacher, two fourth-grade teachers, one fourth-grade student teacher and one

fifth-grade teacher. These included four female teachers and one male teacher. Because

69

the Science component of the instruction in fourth-grade was shared by two teachers,

both participated in video recording and interviews, though the student population was

the same. The third-grade class was observed and video recorded during the 2007-2008

school year. The fourth-grade class was observed during both the 2007-2008 and 2008-

2009 school years. The fifth grade class was observed during the 2008-2009 school year.

This information is summarized in Table 2.

Student Participants

During the 2007-2008 school year in third grade, 17 students (9 boys and 8 girls)

participated and 5 students (2 boys and 3 girls) refused participation. In the same school

year in fourth grade, 20 students participated (9 girls and 11 boys) and 1 student (1 boy)

refused participation.

The second year of video-recording followed the same population of students to

fourth or fifth grade respectively. Because student assignment to classes resulted in a

different mix of students, additional student participants joined for the second year, while

some students who were video recorded during the first year were not able to be observed

during the second year.

During the 2008-2009 school year in fourth grade, 16 students (7 boys and 9 girls)

participated and 5 students (2 boys and 3 girls) refused participation. Of these students, 7

students (4 girls and 3 boys) were new participants. In the fifth grade 19 students (9 girls

and 10 boys) participated and 3 students (2 girls and 1 boy) refused participation. Twelve

students (6 boys and 6 girls) were new participants. In total, 55 students participated in

the study. Classroom participants are summarized in the table below.

70

Year Grade 3

Boys

Grade 3

Girls

Grade 4

Boys

Grade 4

Girls

Grade 5

Boys

Grade 5

Girls

Totals

2007-

2008

9

8

10

9

36

2008-

2009

7

(3

New)

9

(4

New)

10

(6

New)

9

(6

New)

19 New

55

Table 2 Student Participants

Students for more focused study were those who were identified by their teachers

and peers as “struggling readers.” Though this was a commonly used term, participants

also used terms like poor readers or weak readers. Eight students were identified over the

two year period. Rather than selecting the struggling readers based upon some sort of

quantitative measure, I chose to allow the participants themselves to identify those who

had been socially marked within their own context. I was surprised at times that several

other students were not identified as struggling readers, since in many ways their reading

skills that had been collected by achievement tests and informal reading inventories were

at the same levels as the students labeled as struggling. Thus, even the selection of

students for focused study belies the socially constructed nature of the endeavor.

Year Grade 3

Boys

Grade 3

Girls

Grade 4

Boys

Grade 4

Girls

Grade 5

Boys

Grade 5

Girls

2007-

2008

Steven

Gary

Kaytie Josh

Nico

Michelle

Flirty

2008-

2009

Ross Kaytie Nico Michelle

Shawna

Table 3 Struggling Readers

71

The Eight Struggling Readers

Brief descriptions of the students who were identified as struggling readers and

who became a focus of the study are given below. All names are student-selected

pseudonyms. Information was collected through classroom observations and discussions,

interviews with the student, parent and teachers, or commented on in student work. Since

more information was collected about students who were observed for two years,

descriptions of those three are presented first. Descriptions in both segments are

presented in alphabetical order based on student‟s names.

Kaytie was observed in third and fourth grades. During her interview Kaytie

expressed an extreme dislike for reading. She declared that she had never liked to read,

but sometimes enjoyed having someone read to her. In the interview with her mother,

Kaytie‟s mom expressed deep concern for her dislike of school. (Interview, 5/28/09)

Kaytie received after school tutoring in reading from Miss King, her teacher in

fourth grade. Miss King stated that Kaytie didn‟t like to stay after school because she felt

that other students would look down on her, but she enjoyed and seemed to profit from

the one-on-one time with the teacher after the other students had left.

Describing her reading skills, her third-grade teacher, Mrs. Harper, stated:

[T]he one that sticks out the most is Kaytie. She was definitely a

struggling reader and she had trouble. Fluency was obviously an issue.

You know, she was very slow and that was due to the fact that she would

come across words that she didn‟t know what they said, and would have a

difficult time decoding the word. And due to that, she really had trouble

and reading was very difficult for her. (Interview, 5/7/09)

Kaytie, her mother and the teacher all commented that Kaytie does no reading outside

school. When talking about doing schoolwork at home, Kaytie said that someone helped

72

her with it: “I don‟t read though. I‟ll just, like for homework and stuff, I‟ll make them

read it” (Interview, 5/8/09).

Michelle was observed in both fourth and fifth grades. Though socially she

appeared confident and outgoing, she expressed deep anxiety about herself as a reader. In

an interview with Michelle the following dialogue took place:

Researcher: In your first interview you said you hate reading. Is that right?

Tell me why you hate reading…

Michelle: „Cause I‟m bad at it…Usually when I see a long word I try to

sound it out and I forget about the stuff I‟ve already read…I read slower

than everybody else. (Interview, 3/18/08)

Michelle was frequently observed asking for help from the teacher and other students.

During times when she was asked to complete class assignments, Michelle was observed

to visually check other students‟ work (in authorized or unauthorized situations). Miss

King commented on this pattern:

I actually have found that Michelle definitely has found ways to look at

other people‟s work and it doesn‟t seem to matter. Honestly I moved her

away from Tess…Then we switched desks and started again, because Tess

would be a really good source for her to look off of. But Chloe sits across

from her now and she will look at Flirty‟s… I don‟t think it is necessarily

a cheating thing as much as she wants to be affirmed in what she wrote.

(Interview, 5/8/09)

Despite her reading difficulties, Michelle frequently volunteered to answer questions or

read aloud. Sometimes after volunteering to give an answer, she failed to produce the

requested response. Both of her teachers reported that her parents were very supportive

and tried to help her with her reading challenges. They also stated that they believed she

had a lot of pressure from home to do well academically. Miss King commented,

73

Michelle gets a lot of pressure from home. Michelle is a good C student

but mom thinks she should be an A-B student, and so she gets a lot of

pressure from home and she just can‟t understand it as well as she‟d like

to, but mom thinks she should. (Interview, 3/12/08)

Nico was also observed in fourth and fifth grades. Both his fourth and fifth-grade

teachers commented that his attendance was sporadic, and Miss King instituted a reward

system to encourage him to come to school regularly (Interview, 11/17/07). He had a

poor record in completing work and therefore poor grades. Both his fourth- and fifth-

grade teachers mentioned that in Nico‟s case they didn‟t believe that he had serious

problems with technical reading skills or academic ability in general. They believed that

his low effort and motivation levels kept him from progressing:

The thing is that he‟s a bright kid if he‟s there. He doesn‟t even

necessarily have to do the work to get Cs and Ds. I mean if he did the

work, he‟d probably be a B, occasionally A student. But…that‟s just not a

priority for him. And I have no clue exactly what home life is for him

either and there‟s a lot of that that plays into stuff for him. (Interview,

Miss King, 11/27/07)

A difference was noted from fourth to fifth grade in that Nico began reading

extensively on his own in fifth grade. In an interview he expressed his belief that he was a

“much” better reader in fifth grade: “I improved because when I was in fourth grade I

used to read small, small books. Now in fifth I read chapter books up to 500 pages”

(Interview, 5/8/09). The books that Nico had discovered over the summer between fourth

and fifth grades were graphic novels and comic books. Despite his own evaluation of

substantial improvement, his fifth grade teacher, Mr. Johnson, reported that Nico

demonstrated below grade level performance when reading and responding to textbooks.

Describing Nico‟s work related to a literature book project Miss King reported:

74

Nico kind of gave it a little good last ditch effort to get it in and get it

done, but his book wasn‟t completed and probably if you really sat down

and chatted with him about it, he‟d have the main ideas of it, but he just

didn‟t put the effort into it to really understand it… For him to even get

the picture of Papa leaning on his pitchfork, even though it didn‟t have a

great impact on the story, at least he went and did something…He didn‟t

leave that blank. (Interview, 11/27/07)

Flirty was observed in fourth-grade. Her fourth-grade teacher, Miss King,

reported that she had been slow to gain basic literacy skills, got remedial help with

reading in her early school years and repeated third grade: “[A] lot of that was her

reading skills that held her back a year” (Interview, 11/27/07). She was reticent and shy

during class time, even though she was outgoing and confident in other settings. Her

teacher commented:

I know one of the things that Flirty‟s mom shared with me is…even at

church, sitting and reading Bible verses and whatever, and that‟s

hard…you know the Bible verses stuff, but Flirty doesn‟t always like to do

that because she‟s so much slower than everybody else, and she knows it.

(Interview, 11/27/07)

Gary was observed in third-grade. I observed that he had a tense demeanor when

focused on school tasks, but would relax and joke around in less formal situations. Gary

had some speech and hearing difficulties for which he received special speech/language

services. He spoke in a low, gruff voice, and at a slower than average speaking pace.

Describing Gary‟s reading issues, his teacher, Mrs. Harper, seemed hard-pressed

to specify his difficulties:

Gary had trouble… he just has a lot of different issues that played into his

reading abilities. A lot of it was attention – the ability to stay focused –

and stay on task, and that was probably one of his main issues with his

reading. (Interview, 5/7/09)

75

Josh was observed in fourth grade. In an interview Josh expressed that he hated

reading and avoided it if possible, but would read if he had a good book. He expressed

that most of what he read in class he found boring. He felt that he could read most of the

material that was presented in class, but that he had some difficulty decoding long words.

Generally he didn‟t see much point in reading. When asked why he thought it was

important to read he stated:

I really don‟t but, well I do…. I actually realized it a couple of days

ago…I realized it‟s important to read because someday you might have to

do something and if you didn‟t really read when you were a little kid, you

couldn‟t read when you‟re an adult – and, and it might be harder for you to

read. (Interview, 3/11/08)

Ross was observed in fourth grade. I observed that he spoke in a soft and hesitant

voice and rarely showed enthusiasm. Repeatedly in his interview, Ross expressed that he

didn‟t like to do any kind of reading. He has had such difficulty with reading at school,

that he developed an extreme dislike of reading, even on the computer, and avoided it

when possible. When asked in an interview about specific difficulties he had with

reading, Ross responded, “We‟re doing quizzes and I can‟t – when I read the book, I

can‟t remember” (Interview, 5/8/09). His teacher in fourth grade gave Ross one-on-one

reading tutoring before school and commented on what strategies were effective during

tutoring:

[I‟m] working with them [struggling readers] specifically on vocabulary. I

think Ross in particular because he doesn‟t get read to at home; you know

it wasn‟t a priority at home – he just doesn‟t have a vocabulary base. So

working with him, even on some picture things…we‟ve done some

activities where I showed him a bunch of pictures and he had to match an

emotion to the picture. Things like that, they motivate him. For both [Ross

and Kaytie] I think it motivates them to be one-on-one without anybody

else around. (Interview, 5/8/09)

76

Shawna was observed in fifth grade. She was quiet and reserved both in and

outside the classroom and rarely voluntarily contributed to class or small group

discussions. Shawna orally read at a slower than average pace and used little intonation.

She sometimes disregarded punctuation, resulting in irregular phrasing. She also had

difficulty independently completing comprehension questions based upon Science

readings.

Shawna reported that she enjoyed reading in school if she could choose a fiction

book. She also reported reading her mother‟s cooking magazines at home.

Other Participants

To gather background information for the study, three administrators, one parent

and five other teachers in the school (grades K-2) were interviewed. Because of the small

size of the school district, in order to maintain a level of anonymity, limited information

is provided about these participants. One of the administrators had worked in the school

district for eighteen years at the time of the interview, one for eight years, while the other

had worked there for four years. The six teachers who were interviewed included two

kindergarten teachers, one first grade teacher, one second grade teacher, and one reading

specialist. One of the K-2 teachers was a long term resident of Mapleton, who had

completed her K-12 schooling there and returned after college as a teacher. The teachers

had worked in the elementary school for a range of time periods: two years, five years,

nineteen years, twenty-five years and thirty-two years.

77

Data Collection Procedures

After observing the classes for one week, video recordings were made of whole

class activities on a daily basis for three to four weeks in September and October 2007.

After initial observation and indexing of the videos, I chose to focus on two areas of

interest: 1) students who had been labeled as “struggling readers,” and 2) peer-to-peer

interactions around literacy tasks. Purposive sampling was employed to capture video of

student groups, especially groups that included students who had been identified as

struggling readers.

After completing video recording of one unit in fall 2007, videos were reviewed

and classroom events that involved peer-to-peer interaction and included participation by

struggling readers were selected. Transcripts were created by transcribing the talk of

participants from the videos according to transcription methods presented by Gumperz

(1982a) and Green and Wallat (1981). At times both the videos and the audio recordings

were needed to hear the students‟ words. Then the videos were watched again, and

student actions, gestures, and interactions with the environment were added in a “notes”

section.

Transcripts of the talk on the selected days were made and an initial list of

interactional processes was compiled. Interviews with the teachers were conducted with

predetermined protocol questions as well as follow up questions based upon their answers

and responses to the video viewings. This provided participant feedback on the

observations to verify evidence for the emerging themes, as well as for the identification

of students who teachers perceived to be struggling readers. During March and May

78

2008, two more sets of video recordings were made. When the class was divided into

groups, I selected a group for video recording that included one or more of the students

that had been identified as struggling readers. The choices of who to video were

determined largely by which of the teacher-created groups had students who had agreed

to be video recorded, the physical and spatial limitations of the room and placement of

the students that allowed for me to audio and video record. During this second round of

video recording, I made an effort to set up the camera, and then not hover in the

proximity of the students in an effort to capture more authentic interactions.

Unfortunately, at times the students shifted their positions and thus became wholly or

partially obscured, so some of those videos were less useable for detailed analysis. Large

group interactions were video recorded but data collection focused on small groups and

partner work in cases where the teacher used those participant structures. When small

groups or partner groups were recorded, I placed an addition audio tape recorder in the

middle of the group so that student talk could be heard. Following the transcription and

coding of video data, I interviewed students and teachers using video and audio feedback

based on predetermined protocol questions and then asked follow up questions related to

their responses. I also asked predetermined protocol questions about their literacy skills,

reading habits and expectations of reading in schools.

Classroom Video Recording

After observing in each classroom for a period of one week at the beginning of

each school year, I video recorded in Language Arts and Science class times during one

unit of study. The units lasted between two and four weeks. Video-recording occurred in

79

October 2007, and March, May and October 2008. Initial video recording involved wide

angle shots to capture the entire class. The video camera had a supplemental microphone

to capture classroom talk. Following initial analysis, and the selection of a focus on peer-

to-peer interactions, the video recording focused on one group of students at any time

when the teacher‟s participation structure called for students to be divided into groups.

The group for selected video recording was based upon 1) which groups contained

students who had all signed permissions and 2) which groups met at a location that was

conducive to being video taped. A summary of collected video data is included in the

table below:

Year Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 TOTALS

2007-2008 14 hours, 48

minutes

21 hours, 41

minutes

36 hours, 29

minutes

2008-2009 7 hours, 43

minutes

7 hours, 1

minute

14 hours, 44

minutes

Totals

14 hours, 48

minutes

29 hours, 24

minutes

7 hours, 1

minute

51 hours, 28

minutes

Table 4 Summary of Collected Video Data

Student Interviews

Student interviews were held following initial video analysis, and were conducted

with students who had been captured on a video segment that had been selected for

analysis. Students were interviewed individually, and sometimes in groups, if they were

80

viewing a group interaction. Students were asked about what happened in the video

segment. Follow up questions and questions related to general reading habits or attitudes

were included.

Teacher Interviews

Teachers of classes that were being video recorded were interviewed twice in

each school year. During the first interview, using a prepared set of protocol questions, I

asked teachers about the content and purposes for the material that they were teaching.

During the second interview, teachers were shown video clips, and I asked for their

interpretations of classroom interactions. At this time, I also discussed some tentative

observations, and asked the teachers to do member checks on my observations and

interpretations at that point. A final interview of the classroom teachers occurred in May,

2009. I provided further explanations of events and developing theoretical constructs and

asked the teacher to provide member checks on interpretations of classroom interactions.

Additional Interviews

In order gain background information about the school, community and student

families related to literacy, I interviewed three administrators, six other teachers from

grades K-2 and one parent. A summary of collected interview data is in the table below:

81

Group Number of Interviews Total Time of Recorded

Interviews

Teachers of Classrooms

Being Videotaped

6 2 hours, 57 minutes

Administrators 3 1 hour, 25 minutes

Students 24 7 hours, 19 minutes

K-2 Teachers 5 2 hours, 3 minutes

Parent 1 47 minutes

TOTALS 38 14 hours, 31 minutes

Table 5 Summary of Interview Data

Role of the Researcher

During this research project, I took the role of participant observer. This role had

the advantage that I was able to “gain unique insights into the behaviour and activities of

those they observe because they participate in their activities and, to some extent, are

absorbed into the culture of the group” (Jones & Somekh, 2005, p. 140). At the same

time, because of my role as a participant, I sacrificed certain abilities to intensively

observe.

The teachers and students generally treated me as an additional teacher in the

classroom, even though I was introduced as a university researcher, and the nature of the

research that I was conducting was explained to all participants. Depending upon the

activity, I took different roles from one-on-one student assistance, to assisting the teacher

with setting up or carrying out science labs. The teachers, at times, would publicly ask for

my opinion or addition to the instruction of content. Other times, I was able to sit quietly

in a back corner and take notes.

82

One of the biggest challenges I faced once I had decided to focus on peer-to-peer

interactions, was to unobtrusively monitor student-to-student interactions in such a way

that I could assure adequate video and audio coverage of the exchange, while at the same

time not intruding on the interaction in such a way that an adult presence would change

the dynamics of the event. It was necessary for me to position the video recorder so that it

could capture an interaction between peers in a fairly extensive and up-close manner,

then leave and become engaged with other students so that a true peer-to-peer interaction

would be observed. Because students frequently moved around during such interactions,

sometimes the video or audio quality was compromised because I could not intensively

monitor the recording.

The presence of an additional person and a video camera also changed students‟

interactions to a certain degree. Initially when the camera appeared, many students went

out of their way to walk in front of the camera, make faces at it, or monitor the camera as

they carried out certain activities. In nearly every case where an additional audio recorder

was used throughout the school year, students asked questions or made comments about

it. Though this declined somewhat as time went by, the “performances” for the camera

remained an issue for some students over the entire two-year period. Thus, recorded

interactions must be considered to be a subset of “naturally occurring” interactions, since

there is evidence that my presence and the vicarious presence of an observing researcher

through the video camera changed how some of the students acted.

My use of the terminology “struggling readers” also significantly influenced the

direction of this study. During the first teacher interviews in the pilot study, both of the

83

focus teachers used the word “struggle.” In discussing the units that had been video-

recorded, I asked the question, “Did the students do what you expected?” In response,

Miss King discussed students who had met her expectations and others who had not. She

used the term, “those that struggled” to describe students who had not met her

expectations, as well as to describe students who were unable to independently answer

comprehension questions. While answering the same question, Mrs. Harper singled out

Gary and Kaytie by saying,

Gary and Kaytie, didn‟t [do what I had expected]. I‟m not sure I was

disappointed in their expectations, and they struggled and partly because

they struggled just to read the information you know, so that, a lot of the

times that‟s difficult for them (Interview, 12/2/07).

Thus, the words “struggle” and “struggling”.was introduced into the discussion by the

participants.

However, after analyzing the initial data, I chose to focus on students who the

teachers had identified as those who had more difficulty with reading than their

classmates. At that point, I introduced the terminology of “struggling readers” and

utilized the concept in the additional interviews with school personnel. By framing the

research around a socially constructed concept and category and adopting the commonly

used term and habit of thought associated with the term, I colluded in extending the

hierarchical positioning of some students as well as constructing a category that

influenced the way that the informants addressed the topic of the study.

Data Analysis Procedures

Data analysis focused on the interactions of students who had been identified by the

teachers as “struggling readers.” All video and audio-recordings were indexed and

84

selected interactions were transcribed for detailed investigation. Initially I sought to

identify features or practices of the social interactions of students who were struggling

readers that were marked by others in the environment as contributing to their social

recognition and positioning as a struggling reader. I not only looked at the content of the

students‟ utterances, but also semiotic features associated with their utterances such as

body postures, tone of voice, eye gaze and body orientations of one student to another. In

accordance with discourse analysis methods (Green & Wallat, 1981; Bloome, et al.,

2005), I parsed the transcript into utterances and moved through the transcript utterance

by utterance, looking at linguistic constructions with regard to function and form of

language that gave evidence for how students were constructing positions for themselves

and others, as well as how they were using literacy practices to develop relations within

the discourse community of the classroom. Using a mixture of methods recommended by

Bloome et al. (2005), Gee (1999) and Fairclough (2003), I asked questions about 1) how

semiotics (or sign systems) were being established and utilized in interactions, 2) how

cultural models were being invoked or extended, 3) how activities got constructed by

both teachers and students, 4) how identities were constructed, refracted or contested, and

how they were recognized by or taken up by others, 5) how alliances or adversaries were

built between and among the students, and 6) how students developed perceptions of

themselves as readers and perceptions of the literacy tasks. In considering the social

relations that were being established and the positioning that occurred between students,

turn-taking, politeness forms and control of participation seemed to be particularly salient

in the analysis of peer-to-peer interactions.

85

The initially observed and recorded interactional processes were a jumble of

observations, frequently overlapping, but seeking to identify what students were doing in

their interactions around literacy. The accumulated list is presented below:

1. Struggling readers‟ non-participation in literacy events/motivation

2. Contrast between students who complete work without assistance and those who

repeatedly ask for help/expressed helplessness/disorganization

3. Unsolicited help from peers/rescuing

4. Collaborative efforts in groups to give equal turns/or unequal turns

5. Politeness/rudeness forms that were used and/or commented on by peers

6. Dependence of one student on a peer/peers in the group – leadership/followership

7. Public displays of unknowing (failure to answer questions, answering “I don‟t

know” or silence until the conversation moved to another student)

8. Expressed negative attitudes toward reading or types of reading

9. Expressed positive attitudes toward reading or types of reading

10. Expressed opinions/assessments of personal reading abilities as substandard

11. Expressed opinions/assessments/comparisons of others‟ reading abilities

12. Success in attending to assigned tasks and giving a performance of “hard work”

13. Performances of struggle (grimaces, sighs, head on desk, hands around face)

during literacy assignments

14. Comments about reading difficulty levels/differentiated difficulties of textbooks

15. Differentiation of instruction or assignment expectations given to some

students/differences in teacher support/differences in who is talked to and called

on

16. Comments about reading quantity/involvement beyond classroom assignments

17. Oral reading fluency differences

18. Expressions of frustration/embarrassment during public oral reading

19. Difficulties with technical reading skills (decoding, pace, comprehension) and

successfully completing assigned literacy work

20. Comments on parent or teacher expectations that were not being met

21. Comments about students‟ ability to meet achievement test standards

22. Comments on differences in reading skills based on gender

23. Comments on the purpose of reading and current literacy uses/relevance

24. Expressions of being on a reading “trajectory” – placement on a

reading/developmental time scale

After compiling an initial list of features, I color coded the classroom and

interview transcripts using the items on the list to observe how these interactional

patterns were understood by different participants and how frequently they appeared in

86

the data. From this analysis, I compiled and categorized the accumulated “jottings” to

develop theoretical constructs related to how the students in these three classrooms came

to adopt a habitus of struggling reader.

A sample transcript is given below. Note that the transcript has the actual

utterances of the students, but in addition includes a “Notes” column that describes

semiotic features, as well as identifies socially significant actions such as the way literacy

is used by students to position one another or establish a social hierarchy. A narrative

description follows the sample to highlight the processes used in data analysis.

Speaker Utterance Notes

1 Tex: It says write answers in

complete sentences.

Tex stands while Josh sits at the desk.

Tex gives directions then sits down. Tex

takes the lead in beginning interaction

and leading the activity. “It says” shows

recognition and respect for expected

written format that will receive credit or

teacher acceptance.

2

“Who are Matthew and

Maggie and have you

met them earlier in the

book. Why or why not?”

Tex reads the question out loud. Josh

looks at Tex and waits 4 seconds

without response. Tex takes up on lack

of response. Reading comprehension

questions given as a graded assignment

give authorization to literacy skills that

have value in this classroom:

independently reading the text, reading

questions, producing written answers to

the questions with references to the text

(question asks for page numbers from

the book).

Continued

Transcript 1. Sample Analysis

87

3

Matthew [3 sec] and

Maggie [9 sec] are [3

sec] Mr.[2 sec] xxxx‟s [3

sec].

Tex begins to dictate the answer word

by word and both boys write but Josh

stops and looks out the window before

Tex‟s entire answer is dictated. Josh

shifts his gaze to look at Tex‟s answer

then writes again. Josh looks around the

room. Josh checks Tex‟s answer again

and writes again. Tex takes authority to

answer the question for the group. Josh

shows his reliance on Tex by copying

parts of Tex‟s written answer.

4 Josh: We only have five

minutes.

Josh glances at clock and tells Tex the

time.

[What Josh wrote: “Mathew and magie

are the meghber yes we met them in ch

1”]

Josh changes pronoun usage to the

inclusive “we” when through the

previous interactions he has used

primarily “I”. Josh wants to increase

Tex‟s pace.

5 Tex: We have enough time. Tex resists Josh‟s proposal and remains

in charge of the pace; takes up Josh‟s

“we” in affirming the task to be for both

partners.

6 This is um:: Let‟s

say we have met

them in the first

chapter.

Tex looks through book to find the page.

Proposes solidarity with “Let‟s”.

7 Let‟s put on page:: I‟ll

find the page.

Ten second delay. Text perceived as

authority for Tex. Another “Let‟s” to

propose answer, then switch to “I” in

who will do the finding

8

Josh: Isn‟t that the first

chapter?

Josh keeps looking at the clock.

Uses memory to create answer in

contrast to using the book. Resists Tex‟s

move to find the page; suggests

alternative answer.

9 Tex: Huh? Josh‟s comment not heard or attended

to.

Continued

88

Transcript 1 continued

10 Josh: First chapter. Repair. Proposed answer for both

participants.

11 Tex: I know, but I‟ll just put

the page.

Resists Josh‟s answer. Changes pronoun

usage to first person.

Text is valued more highly than student

memory. Opposes Josh‟s suggestion for

answer; remains in control of task; adds

modal “just” to soften the refusal.

12 Umm:: It should be:: On

page 8

Dictates answer; use of “should” as

move to assert that the correct response

would be “Pg 8;” asserts authority over

Josh by using a modal in claiming what

the correct answer should be in contrast

to Josh‟s proposed answer.

In this sample, one literacy event was selected from a partner-reading exercise. The talk

was broken into utterances, and the embodied performance of the participants that was

viewed on the video data was described through notes that indicated not only the talk that

occurred between participants, but other semiotic cues that showed how the participants

made meaning and responded. By analyzing the language that was used, the postural

configurations, eye gaze and the ostensive references made through gesture, it was

possible to see how the participants proposed certain actions and relations with one

another. Consequent behaviors gave evidence for how the participants made meaning of

the emblematic references. By observing how the participants responded, it was possible

to describe their interpretation of the ongoing interactional cues. It was also possible to

see how the students used literacy skills or resources as symbolic capital during the

interaction and how the students positioned one another through the interchange.

89

Summary

The study seeks to address the questions: 1) How do some middle childhood

students come to be socially marked as struggling readers? 2) How are peer-to-peer

interactions around literacy events implicated in such positioning? 3) How do students

use literacy practices in ways that socially differentiate some students as struggling

readers or hierarchically position one another based on literacy skills? In order to

investigate these questions and develop theoretical constructs, I have chosen to use

microethnographic discourse analysis.

Microethnographic discourse analysis was selected as a research methodology in

order to foreground how the language used in student interactions on the micro level

connected with the multiple and complex social/historical/cultural interactions on the

macro level to impact student‟s lives. By detailed analysis of the language that was used

during everyday literacy events, it was possible to develop theoretical constructs about

how students position one another and how that positioning, over time, results in some

students developing a habitus of struggling reader that has negative academic, social and

emotional implications.

90

CHAPTER 4: THE CONTEXT

Introduction

This chapter provides background information which connects the microanalysis

of student-to-student interactions in classrooms (presented in Chapter 5) to the historical,

cultural and social context in which the interactions took place. The presentation of this

material is based on the premise that what happens in classrooms is a part of a dense and

interconnected social web that is situated in time and space. Though the focus of the

study is on what happens between students in a set of three classrooms, the students are

acting within a highly complex social network that influences the forms and functions of

the institution in which they interact, as well as the social, cultural and linguistic ways of

being to which they have been socialized.

Previous researchers have provided evidence that certain social, cultural and

linguistic features influence literacy learning in schools. The chapter is designed to

portray the intersection of community social structures and practices with students‟,

teachers‟ and administrators‟ assumptions about literacy, learning and school that are the

backdrop for the interactions within the classrooms. The observations are taken from

interviews with school personnel, one parent and students. The bulk of the material

comes from interviews with school personnel, resulting in a somewhat skewed

perspective. However, since the focus of the study is on the social world of students, the

perspectives of teachers and administrators of the school become valuable as they

91

represent the set of understandings from which the school is organized and run. Their

perspectives give insights into how students from different places and economic groups

are perceived within the social milieu of the school, and describe the perspectives on

literacy, literacy practices and procedural display that frame the interactions of the

students in classrooms. Some of the factors that researchers have connected to literacy

learning were addressed by students, the parent and school personnel in the interviews.

Other social factors that have been shown to impact literacy were observed during

classroom observations but were not highlighted or recognized by school personnel.

These features will also be considered, since they are salient features of classroom

relations.

This is not intended to be an ethnography of the community, nor does it represent

a comprehensive picture of the complex social networks that impact students‟ lives since

data was collected from limited perspectives. A comprehensive description of the

community and its interactions is beyond the scope of this study. Historical information

was collected from books on local history written by residents of the county or town at

various time periods. The remainder of the information was drawn from interviews of

school personnel, one parent and the students, and from personal observations and field

notes that were collected during the two year period of observation. Only one parent of a

struggling reader agreed to be interviewed, so the perspective of parents is weakly

represented.

92

Data is from interviews with two administrators, three teachers of grades 3-5 and

five teachers from grades K-2. In order to maintain anonymity within such a small

population, the three administrators have been labeled as Administrators A-C.

The three teachers from grades 3-5 were the teachers in whose classrooms data

collection occurred. Because Science class in fourth-grade was sometimes shared by

teachers, some video recording occurred in the class of an additional fourth-grade teacher

(Ms. Smith). The focus teachers were given the following pseudonyms:

Grade Level Pseudonym

Third Grade Mrs. Harper

Fourth Grade Miss King

Fifth Grade Mr. Johnson

Table 6 Focal Classroom Teachers

Five teachers of grades Kindergarten through Second Grade were also

interviewed to gain additional perspectives from teachers who had taught the focus

students. Two kindergarten teachers, one first-grade teacher, one second-grade teacher

and one reading specialist were interviewed. These teachers have been given the

pseudonyms of Teachers V-Z.

Social Divisions in the School and Community

Researchers have indicated that certain social features may be correlated to the

population of students who have been identified as struggling readers. The “No Child

93

Left Behind” Act was implemented based upon statistics that indicated that the

disproportionate population of students who failed to graduate from high school or who

received low marks on standardized tests were correlated with minority status, parental

educational status and/or family income. (Grissmer, Kirby, Berends & Williamson,

1994). Six of the eight students who were identified as struggling readers fell into one or

more of the categories that are associated with low reading success. A brief description of

the physical layout, history and economic divisions of the two towns that make up

Mapleton-Rockford School District along with interview comments from the school

personnel related to these topics give insight into social features of the communities that

have been connected to literacy learning in school.

Mapleton is situated at the crossroads of two state routes and is cut through the

middle by a bike path that was formerly a railroad right-of-way. A university is the most

prominent feature of the village, and its properties encompass the northwest quadrant of

the town. One original old building remains as a remnant of the earliest years of the

university, but the remainder of the buildings are newer, brick structures surrounded by

neatly landscaped lawns and gardens. Directly across the street from the historic building

on campus is the town‟s school which houses grades Kindergarten through Twelve.

The southwest portion of the town is mainly small older homes. To the west the

village extends only two blocks beyond the main street before hitting the village limits.

The southeast portion of town is locally known as “Cardboard City.” The homes in the

area are considered “starter homes” and are small, one story buildings, built on concrete

slabs. Also in this section of town is a circle of brick apartments that are married student

94

housing, and another set of one-story apartments that serve as low-income government

housing.

The northeast sector is the only part of the village that extends farther than two

blocks from the main streets. The public school is situated in this sector with the village

grocery store/gas station and the village medical building just to the north. Behind the

medical center, a development of newer, larger houses have been built and are inhabited

primarily by university faculty members. Though the official name of the development is

“College Park,” the locals refer to it as “Snob Hill.”

Economically and geographically, Mapleton is dominated by the university. It is

by far the largest employer in the town, and community activities are organized around

the university calendar. The population of the village more than doubles during the

academic year when the university students are resident. The churches, coffee shops and

fast food stores work on reduced hours during university breaks.

Three miles up the state highway is the small hamlet of Rockford. The village

originally ran their own public school, but consolidated with Mapleton in the 1960s to

make the operations more financially expedient. Though the school district is called

Mapleton-Rockford Local School District, the schools themselves maintained the names

of Mapleton Elementary, Middle and High School. The geographic separation of the two

villages creates certain divisions and difficulties for the public school students. Students

living in Mapleton are all within walking distance of the school. However, students in

Rockford generally ride the bus to and from school, and need to organize transportation if

they choose to participate in before- or after-school activities.

95

Outside the limits of the two villages, the school district encompasses a large area

of countryside, primarily farmland, in two counties. Many local farmers are descendents

of the settlers of the area, and their family names are reflected in the names of the country

roads that lead out of the villages. Though the farming operations are diverse, the

majority raise soy beans and corn.

An early history of the European settlement of the county in which Mapleton and

Rockford are situated was written in 1881 (Dills). The earliest European-American

settlers of Mapleton were identified as principally from Kentucky. They were

descendants of the Covenanters, who came to the United States from Scotland in the

early days of the settlement of the United States. Of the early families who originally

settled the area between 1801 and 1814 and whose biographies appear in Dills‟ (1881)

work, sixteen emigrated from Kentucky, two from Pennsylvania, and one each from

Virginia and Prussia. The Covenanters played a prominent role in the village, leaving a

legacy of their heritage through the local dialect and a heritage of their religious beliefs

through the establishment of a local college that has grown into a university which

currently serves approximately 3000 students (Murdoch, 1987; college website).

The geographic, historical and economic situation is reflected in the perceptions

of school personnel and community members related to the population of students who

attend school in the Mapleton-Rockford school district. Informants rarely defined the

groups that they discussed, but talked about different social groups as a “given.” During

multiple interviews, school personnel identified three distinct social groups within the

community, though some were quick to add the caveat that not all residents fall into one

96

of these social groups. The community members divided the population into “townies”

and “university people,” with the townies being subdivided again into “farmers” and

“low income” groups.

School personnel who were interviewed described university people as those

whose families were directly employed by the local, religiously affiliated university. Miss

King and Teacher Z commented that persons associated with the university kept

themselves separated from the remainder of the village population. Further, Teacher Z

expressed the perception that the university people considered themselves to be superior

(in undefined ways), and that their children had an advantage in the local school system.

She commented on her perceptions of the social groups as she had experienced them in

her childhood as a K-12 student at Mapleton, and the daughter of a dairy farmer: “There

was a group that was university and there was the rest of us… And I‟ve seen a change

over the years. Where the university and the community more meshed. You know, it‟s

not quite so separated. From my perception” (Interview, 5/21/09). When questioned

about this perception that was mentioned in several interviews, Administrator B,

commented that she had observed a difference in the treatment of university-connected

children versus the rest of the community: “Yeah, I do see, yeah, I do see that. Although

when I look at kids who come up from the ranks, valedictorians and salutatorians, there is

not that difference” (Interview, 5/22/09).

The term “townie” was used variably among the informants. At times it was used

to draw a social distinction between the employees of the university and the other citizens

of the town, and was perceived to have a negative connotation as expressed above by

97

Teacher Z. However, at other times, it was used by town residents as more unifying term,

to connect local residents from others who came into the community from more distant

geographical locations. One example of this was the student who wrote of himself in the

article, “Both sides of the street: Life as a „Townie‟”:

As the son of a University staff member, I was a bit of a contradiction. I

often enjoyed the benefits of college life, going to basketball games and

participating in other campus events. At the same time however, I

understood my friends‟ complaints, their feelings of dispossession when

college students flooded into our small town each academic semester.

Sure, we all complained about how boring “Mapleton” was, but it was our

town and therefore our right to do so. (Keller, 2007)

Teacher Z self-identified as a “townie” and divided the townies into two

subgroups. One was the agricultural community. According to a school board member

who self-identified as a farmer, the agricultural community connected itself to the

founders of the village, and claimed a long history with the geographical area. The

farmers of the area were the large landholders and therefore represented a significant

economic sector of the community. A majority of school board members come from the

agricultural sector (Field Notes). The agricultural families expressed a strong sense of

community and mutual care for one another as exemplified when a local farmer was

injured during harvest season. Many other farmers left their own fields to harvest the

field of their injured friend (Field Notes). 4-H and Future Farmers of America had strong

contingents among the students. At the opening of every school year, a bulletin board

outside the main office was covered with newspaper articles that highlighted the awards

that the 4-H students obtained at the county fair (Field Notes).

98

When asked in an interview how they felt the rural nature of the community

impacted literacy learning, Administrator B and Teacher Y both noted that the cultural

differences of students from the farming community sometimes impacted their

willingness to engage in school literacy activities. Although they indicated that generally

children of farmers were highly motivated and did well in school, there were two stories

of farm kids who resisted schooling. One was the story told by Teacher Y of a

kindergartner who disliked attending school. He told his teacher that he was going to be a

farmer, so he didn‟t need school. He was quoted as saying that “he would rather be home

on his farm on a tractor.” Since the student‟s father had also said that he had not liked

school, the teacher suggested that negative attitudes toward education were being passed

from one generation to the next (Interview, 6/1/09).

Another high school student was described by Administrator B as being “so into

agriculture that he doesn‟t see the purpose in reading. He sees no purpose in school at all.

His dad doesn‟t support the school. Dad is not a reader, and he doesn‟t read outside of

school. It‟s not that they can‟t read; they don‟t read” (Interview, 5/22/09). She told the

story of when he was in middle school, the student walked home from school – left the

building. When he returned and was punished for his truancy, he told the principal:

“Don‟t think I‟m not going to do this tomorrow. I‟d rather be riding on the tractor”

(Interview, 5/22/09).

The second segment of townies was a group of people who were not associated

with the university or agriculture – the “low-income” residents. According to

Administrator B, the population generally rented apartments or small houses. There was a

99

low-income government housing unit in town whose residents tended to be highly

mobile, and many lived in the community for short periods of time or moved in and out

of the community. Administrator B commented that, “Many kids with difficulties come

from the government housing. There are kids attending from 4 different schools. If they

get into difficulty, they may open enroll at [another nearby school], but return because of

difficulty there” (Interview, 5/22/09).

There are geographical, historical and economic divisions in Mapleton and

Rockford which may impact classroom interactions within the school. Research has

shown that there are variations in literacy practices based on a number of features, and

one of those is socioeconomic class differences (Chall & Jacobs, 2003; Chall, et al.,

1983; Purcell-Gates, 1995; Snow, Barnes, Chandler, Goodman & Hemphill, 1991).

Statements of school personnel indicated their perceptions that socio-economic status

accounted for some of the students‟ reading struggles. When asked in an interview,

Administrator C described his perceptions of literacy problems related to differences in

socio-economic status:

[O]ne interesting indicator for us is kindergarten readiness assessment.

And our kindergarten readiness assessment is given the first week of

kindergarten. Our scores are in the bottom of the county… I think this

particular community, there is some evolution behind this, okay? There‟s a

lack of urgency. This is just what I‟ve picked up in the four years,

okay…A lack of urgency for literacy and reading and school readiness in

general. There is a rather strong desire to let a child remain in the secure

and nurturing setting of home with mother, and it‟s much more, not that

there are, there are definite qualities to this, but we have a high percentage

of homeschooled children, okay…So that is an indicator of some of the

values in the community for me. When I look at that I see there are still

those people with the same values that are sending their children to

kindergarten. But they haven‟t been sending their children to an organized

preschool....So there‟s a value issue there, there‟s a socio-economic issue

100

there and I think that‟s a growing component in our community. I don‟t

think it‟s going the other way. (Interview, 6/30/08)

To deal with the perceived issues, Administrator C explained that he has taken steps to

reach the pre-Kindergarten community. The goal was to encourage families to take steps

to prepare their preschool children in the skills that the school believed were needed for

successful kindergarten entry. Personnel of the school district created a newborn

welcome bag with information on the public library, library card application, the YMCA

and the local preschool program. It also included state content standards for pre-K on a

CD. The content standards were provided in a CD format so that non-reading parents

would have audio access to the information. The kits were distributed to every newborn

within the school district. In addition, the school prepared a skill kit that was distributed

to all students who registered for Kindergarten, which the district calls a “Begindergarten

Kit.” It included about twenty activities with all the materials needed to complete them

and aligns with the skills required on the Kindergarten Readiness Test (Interview,

6/30/08).

Another issue that was raised associated with socio-economic difference in the

community and related to struggling readers was the perception that families of low

socio-economic status had less time and fewer resources to give their children the broad

range of experiences that would allow them to develop language and literacy skills to the

same degree as other children, leading to the label of struggling reader. Mrs. Harper

addressed the ways that differentiated economic capital may have impacted struggling

readers:

101

This is my perception of them in the classroom – and maybe, it may or

may not have been, you know, that that‟s true, but it just seems that they

have had limited opportunity…A. either economics kept them from having

experiences – from being able to go to different places or do the different

things… B. maybe the parents were not as involved in spending the time

to help them talk about different things. And they‟re spending a lot of time

on the television, with the television or on the video game, and there‟s not

just a lot of parent involvement at home in their lives. But that‟s from a

very, that‟s just from my view here and that may or may not be true, so

economics is a big one. (Interview, 6/7/09)

There is evidence that social and economic distinctions were recognized and acted

upon in the community and in the school system in ways that created social categories.

Those distinctions were connected to the understandings of school personnel related to

students‟ performance on literacy tasks. A related distinction that was observed in the

community was the use of a local dialect by some members of the community.

Dialect

Wolfram & Schilling-Estes (2006) indicate that issues related to dialect usage

impact students‟ literacy learning in school. In issues related to applied dialectology, the

researchers indicate that students with non-standard dialects are frequently impacted in

the dual areas of assessment and instruction in Standard English. The researchers have

identified three dimensions of testing where sociolinguistic issues arise related to dialect:

(1) the definition of “correctness” or the normative linguistic behavior that

serves as a basis for evaluating responses to test items; (2) the way in

which language is used as a medium to measure different kinds of

knowledge and skills; and (3) the sociolinguistic situation or context in

which testing takes place. (Wolfram & Schilling-Estes, 2006, pp. 296-297)

Though the writers relate these issues specifically to the area of testing, it may be

assumed testing is reflective of issues that would be significant in day-to-day classroom

interactions.

102

The second aspect in which students with dialects face difficulties is in the usage

of Standard English in school. Curriculum, assessments and local standards place social

value on certain privileged dialects and accents. There is evidence that assumptions about

intelligence and other stereotypes are attached to non-preferred language forms. Thus,

students and families who use non-standard English forms face challenges with the

language of the texts and classrooms as well as with privileged language forms that

serves as markers of social status (Powers, 2002; Siegel, 2006).

In the Mapleton/Rockford community, many residents spoke with a dialect which

I identified as a sub-dialect of Appalachian English (see Appendix A). A segment of the

population used the local dialect, which I heard regularly in the local coffee shops,

grocery store, bank and hairdressers (Field Notes).

Grammatical features included vernacular past tense forms such as “he seen him,”

and “I done it.” Helping verbs were commonly omitted with the perfect tenses. Subject

relative pronouns were sometimes dropped such as, “He‟s the man painted my house,”

and a personal dative was added, as in, “I‟m gonna get me a Snickers.” The use of

prepositions to end sentences was a common feature such as, “Where‟d you get that at?”

or, “Where‟re you going to?” Local pronunciation aligned with the Appalachian sub

dialect that is described as follows:

Pronunciation features include the rhyming of collar (and sometimes

color) with caller, cot with caught, and Don with dawn. Three other

mergers of vowels advancing throughout Appalachia and now present in

southern Ohio result in the rhyming of steel with still, pool with pull, and

sale with sell. Also common is the tensing of vowels in fish, push, and

special (feesh, poosh, special); pronouncing greasy as greazy; inserting (r)

in wa(r)sh, l in draw(l)ing, and (t) in across(t); and using monophthongs

in I, buy, fire, and tired (to rhyme with ah, bah, far, and tarred) and

103

diphthongs in dog and tall (pronounced as dawg and towel). Stress on the

first syllable, as in IN-surance and UM-brella, is common, and the

reduction of two syllables to one also occurs, as in sewer, Stewart, and

Newark (pronounced sore, stort, nerk). (Flanigan, 2006, p. 1030)

Distinctive local vocabulary included the use of “pop” for soda, “bucket” instead of pail,

“lightning bug” for firefly, “spigot” for faucet or tap and “sneakers” for tennis or running

shoes. Grandparents were often called mamaw and papaw. When residents were

discussing their homes they spoke of going “up home” or “down home.”

Researchers have indicated that Appalachian English is disfavored in the United

States and linked to a number of stereotypes. Though Appalachian English is generally

associated with southern states, the dialect is found in other parts of the country,

especially in border states. Hartley and Preston (1999) have studied attitudes toward

speech patterns and have reported on Appalachian English:

[T]he identity category was used almost exclusively to characterize the

speech of the South Midlands (when it was identified as a separate speech

area), usually as “Hillbillies” or “Hicks.” Only the MI respondents (and a

minority at that) seem willing to identify this region in more neutral terms,

such as “Appalachian...” Labels with the word “hillbilly” or “hick”

predominated for the South Midland, an interesting division between a

straightforward linguistic caricature on the one hand and an identity or

stereotypical person label on the other (e.g. “Tennessee Kentucky

Southern State „Hick‟ Hillbillies”). (Hartley and Preston, 1999, pp. 230,

235)

People used the local Mapleton dialect as a method of communication in informal

or private conversations. Adults in the community frequently transitioned between the

use of mainstream English for more formal occasions, and dialectal usage for personal,

informal occasions, though characteristic pronunciations were observed to overlap

between the two. In the one interview that was conducted with a parent of a struggling

104

reader, the parent used mainstream English and spoke generally positively about her

child‟s progress in school and the school system. When the audio recorder was turned off,

she shifted to the use of the local dialect and discussed some of her concerns and worries

about her child‟s progress. This interaction highlighted the public/private,

formal/informal dichotomy that characterized dialect usage in Mapleton and Rockford:

“Appalachian English is associated with a rural, stigmatized vernacular at the same time

it may be associated with people‟s sense of cultural identity” (Wolfram & Shilling-Estes,

2006, p. 41). In Mapleton the dialect was most often heard when townies (of both types)

met together. The speech patterns served as an important social marker in the

community, signaling an informality and familiarity that the residents cultivated among

friends. However, it also served as a negative marker in school.

Even though the dialect was used by many residents in personal interactions, the

expected language for formal interactions including all school activities was mainstream

English. During videotaping in the local classrooms, both teachers and students generally

used mainstream English for spoken and written interactions, with a few notable

exceptions when the teachers used a preposition to end a sentence, dropped helping verbs

associated with the perfect tenses and substituted “good” for “well.”

When questioned in interviews, none of the teachers recognized that students in

the area spoke a dialectal form. Teacher Z responded to a question about linguistic

diversity in the following way:

Researcher: Alright, what social or cultural features of the community or

school may need to be addressed when discussing literacy practices? And

how do you address cultural/linguistic/socioeconomic diversity…

105

Teacher Z: Well, we really don‟t see a lot of diversity in our population as

far as language is concerned. Every now and then we‟ll get somebody

who‟s not English-speaking.

Researcher: Do dialects ever come into the picture?

Teacher Z: No, I‟ve not noticed any of that, sometimes we get somebody

that needs speech, but the dialect, no. I‟ve never seen any that I can recall.


When I described the common non-standard features that had been noted to the

classroom teachers, several teachers changed their position and indicated that some

students and many of the parents spoke in the dialectal form, though no teacher believed

that the dialect had any effect on students‟ reading ability. Teacher V commented:

I saw it in parents. Not widespread, but there were occasions when I

would see it in parents. But I don‟t recall it being...the helping verbs in

some cases. I think that was a problem with some of my kids, and some of

the kids that came in with really poor skills, I would notice it in some of

them. But as a rule, I can‟t say that it impacted the classroom that much.

But it was noticeable in some families...I‟ve seen some who spoke with

those kind of dialectal characteristics, but not very many. (Interview,

5/27/09)

When I commented that by third, fourth and fifth grade, almost all students used

mainstream English in the classroom, Teacher V responded that a certain portion of her

students maintained their dialectal use in the classroom: “I would say I had some kids

that did not [use mainstream English]. Not a lot of them, but I had certainly some kids

that came in and persisted in those habits” (Interview, 5/27/09).

Administrator A commented on the importance of employees using mainstream

English based on the fact that the school valued employees who could model mainstream

English: “[P]eople [who are] working with children who are struggling with reading and

106

use the incorrect syntax and plurals, possessives and all that, you know what I‟m talking

about, is not a good situation” (Interview, 6/25/08).

Research indicates that the school‟s requirements to use Mainstream English and

the implicit messages that the home language is inferior may cause certain internal

conflicts among students who must use one form of language at school and yet try to

maintain a speech form that connects to their community:

The various social meanings associated with ethnic and regional varieties

of American English often force speakers to choose between fitting in and

speaking correctly. Appalachian English is associated with a rural and

stigmatized vernacular, and at the same time with an individual‟s native

roots. These individuals are faced with the dilemma of choosing between

group solidarity and being stigmatized by the mainstream culture....Failure

to use the vernacular of family may be interpreted as a symbolic rejection

of the family and the inability to fit in (Fasold, 1996; Wolfram &

Schilling-Estes, 1998). Many of these students deliberately choose to

maintain the language, traditions, social behaviors, and culture of their

home. (Powers, 2002, p. 86)

Of the eight students identified as struggling readers, six utilized the local

dialectal forms related to Appalachian English during some part of their recorded

interactions. All eight used the more formal, mainstream patterns for most of their school

interactions, but sometimes inserted dialectal comments, or used dialect in their informal

interactions with peers. Josh concluded one of the interviews by making a shift from

mainstream to dialectal speech as an indicator that he was finished with the conversation

stating, “I ain‟t got nothin‟ else to say” (Interview, 5/27/08).

The presence of dialectal usage in informal situations and at home among the

struggling readers was significant 1) because school personnel seemed unaware that

students used a dialect and therefore did not consider the implications of dialect usage in

107

literacy instruction, and 2) because the particular dialect of the community has shown to

have negative social associations, so should be considered in examining students‟ social

relations. The expectation that all students would use mainstream English for speaking

and writing in school, and the negative attitudes associated with family members who

used dialect created a social divide between the school and the community. Another

feature that indicated a perceived separation between school and community practices

related to reading struggles was inadequate preschool literacy preparation and inadequate

home support of literacy tasks once students began school.

Relationship of Home Literacy to School Literacy

Researchers have studied to what degree home literacy practices align with school

literacy practices, and the consequence of a home-school disconnect for students‟

ongoing literacy learning (Au, 1980; Heath, 1982, 1983; Michaels, 1986). In this line, I

am following B. Street and J. Street (1991) in defining “school literacy practices” as:

uses of written language that are undertaken to display competence with a

particular form and register of written language. That is, written language

is used to display the skill of the user (and to be evaluated) rather than to

accomplish a purpose such as communication, entertainment, personal

expression, and so forth. (Bloome, et al., 2000)

This is contrasted with “home literacy practices,” defined as the ways written language

are used to accomplish cultural life. The distinction is not strictly based on location, but

relates to the idea of places where literacy skills are taught or “pedagogized” (Street &

Street, 1991) versus where they are utilized to accomplish life functions in a family or

community and are not taught in a direct way. Though there is evidence that there is

substantial overlap in home and school literacy practices (Bloome, Puro, Theodorou,

108

1989), the heuristic of the division between the two is helpful for studying literacy.

Mapleton-Rockford teachers and administrators held the belief that there was a distinct

and considerable difference between home and school literacy practices in their

community and that the disconnect between the two substantially explained the reason

why some students became struggling readers.

All the school personnel who were interviewed mentioned the noncomplementary

relation of home and school literacy practices and their belief that this disconnect was a

major factor that resulted in students becoming struggling readers. Administrator C

expressed his belief that parents in the community had adopted parenting styles that

worked against students‟ ability to acquire literacy skills that led to school success. He

stated:

I just observe this kind of very traditional cultural quality to the family,

that the idea that we‟re going to engage in conversation, as a family, as a

regular way of interacting whenever we‟re together [is absent]. It‟s

children know their place, grownups have conversation, children sit in the

backseat of the car quietly. There‟s some old fashioned conservatives, and

frankly, with early literacy…that dialogue and that constant, well what,

what words do you see on the signs that start with “C”? Let‟s play a little

game. That interaction all the time really is huge. So I think there‟s a

contemporary expectation placed on our schools, but we‟re in a very

traditional and sometimes distressed community. (Interview 6/30/08)

Teacher V expressed the difficulties that she had observed related to students

entering school with limited language and school socialization skills. She stated that the

lack of knowledge of school skills not only provided a challenge to the student because

they were on a steeper learning curve from the first day of school, but it also immediately

began the process that resulted in hierarchically positioning students based upon that gap

109

in school skills. Note also that Teacher V connected poor preparation with a perception

that the family whose child is not well prepared for school, does not value education:

There is a core of students that come from families for whom education is

important. And that core of students comes in fairly well prepared – with

language skills, alphabet knowledge, some phonetic skills. There is

another segment of the population for whom education has not been as

important, and those children come in with weaker language skills, very

little alphabet knowledge, sometimes weak vocabulary skills… I see

children coming in that don‟t know the names for common terms, don‟t

know the vocabulary for common objects, for example, household objects,

objects that they see in the community, animals, things of that nature…

I think it‟s probably a perpetuation of educational standards through their

families and backgrounds. I don‟t mean to imply that those families don‟t

care for their children. I don‟t mean to imply that at all, but I think they

may have had a series of poor educational experiences within the families,

who either don‟t know how or are afraid to try to do any kind of

instructing of their children before they enter school…The gap, and

depending on the class, here with Mapleton when you have such small

numbers, the numbers can impact greatly the test scores and all those kind

of things. We didn‟t have to deal with test scores at the kindergarten level.

But sometimes the gap would be huge. You know I would have some

children walking through the door reading, and some children who had

never held a pencil in their hands before and that‟s a literal example.


Besides lack of preparation for school literacy with preschoolers, the teachers

spoke of lack of ongoing home support once students had entered school in terms of

completing homework and reading with children at home. When Mr. Johnson was asked

to identify any characteristics that he could identify that would contribute to some

students in his class being identified as struggling readers, he replied, “Very little parent

involvement. However that is not true in Michelle‟s case” (Interview, 5/5/09).

When discussing reading levels of struggling students, Teacher W mentioned the

role of parents:

110

Teacher W: I have some that are struggling and they are just kind

of right there, but they‟re not low enough to do like IEPs on.

Researcher: Any insights into how that happens?

Teacher W: You know I think that parent support is a lot of it and

if they would just practice five or ten minutes of reading either to them or

with them, I think that helps. (Interview, 5/19/09)

Summarizing the statements of most teachers, they believed that if a student struggled

with reading, it was a reflection on family literacy practices and/or value systems. They

also believed that a student struggled with reading because the family did not give them

early experiences with books, reading and writing that prepared them for the skills

needed in school and that they did not encourage, support or practice reading with their

children once they entered school.

School Expectations and Procedural Display

Next, I will describe the sets of social expectations and standards which students,

parents, teachers and administrators connected to the enactment of a “good” or

“struggling” reader. Research indicates that, in addition to the technical skills of reading

and writing, there is a socially accepted set of relational skills and procedures that must be

mastered for students to be evaluated as skilled in literacy (Cazden, 2001; McCarthey,

2002). This has been called the “hidden curriculum” (Barnes, 1976; Mercer, 1995) and is

associated with “procedural display” (Bloome, et al., 1989).

During interviews, and as part of everyday teaching, teachers and students made

comments that gave insights into perceived qualities and practices that characterized an

academically competent reader. These comments were stated positively, related to ways

of being that were perceived as characterizing a “good” reader, or negatively, related to

111

ways of being that contrasted with those of a “good” reader. Both students and teachers

expressed an implicit understanding of the hierarchical nature of the classroom based on

literacy skills and talked about the practices of “upper,” “medium,” or “lower” readers.

Hard Work and Independence

Miss King characterized “upper level” students as being independent and working

hard. She repeatedly used the terms “independent” and “independently” or “on their

own” to describe how good readers acted or how struggling readers failed to act. Miss

King commented:

I think for the upper level, scaffolding was just basically show them what I

expected from them and they took off from there and they could complete

the rest of it on their own…the lower level was almost a daily check

in…trying to work with them…so that they can become more

independent. (Interview, 11/27/07)

In contrast, she characterized struggling readers as those who needed help to

complete tasks, or who utilized others to get tasks completed. The dependent behaviors

were not only considered undesirable, they were also blamed for a student‟s inadequate

rehearsals of reading that in turn resulted in a lack of automaticity that was needed for

fluent reading. Discussing the dependence of struggling readers, Miss King stated:

Sometimes [struggling readers‟] coping strategies are just using other

people, whether it‟s looking off of their answers or asking for help from

somebody that they know is a better reader. But generally I think that that

hurts them the most then because you‟re really not focusing on reading

skills, it‟s more the information. And they can‟t process independently.

(Interview, 5/7/09)

On the other hand, teachers commended students where were identified as struggling

readers when they worked hard. Students who worked hard and struggled were described

differently from those who struggled but did not work hard. Miss King and Mr. Johnson

112

classified Michelle‟s patterns of interaction with literacy differently from other struggling

readers. She was set apart based upon strong family support, but also because she worked

very hard. Miss King commended Kaytie and Ross on how hard they worked on their

state standardized tests, despite the fact that she anticipated that they would not receive a

passing score.

Motivation

Closely connected with the concepts of hard work and independence was the

importance of motivation. Teachers described competent readers as those who were self-

motivated or having motivation, while lower level readers were described as being

unmotivated. In discussing students‟ motivation related to performance on a literature

project related to the novel that the students read in class, Miss King expressed that there

was a segment of her class that rarely expressed interest in the topics of instruction. They

minimally participated in the expected activities. They also acted discontent which was

expressed through body posture, intonation and/or off-task behavior:

And I have to say that most of my kids that did not do nearly what I

expected them to do were just the kids that I struggle with in anything of

trying to capture their attention, capture their motivation to do

something=they weren‟t really into the book. You know they‟re not really

into school. (Interview, 11/27/07)

Teachers expected enthusiasm and cooperation with assigned tasks. Miss King

recognized that some students didn‟t always feel passionate about every topic or reading

that was presented. However, she expected students to participate in all class activities

without complaining and with a positive attitude. Regarding a novel that was read in class

she stated, “I‟d say 25% of the kids get into it, 75% do it. Those that are highly motivated

113

to do well will do well, you know, whether they like it or not” (Interview, 11/27/07). Tex,

a fourth-grade student expressed his understanding of this expectation when he stated, “I

was doing it to get a good grade. I wasn‟t too into it, but I did it to get the grade”


During interviews, teachers attributed struggling with reading to low effort and

poor motivation second only to family involvement. The teachers believed that struggling

readers were those who had a history of poor effort and participation which had

accumulated from their early years to result in difficulties in school that are multiplied

over time. Miss King commented,

My two this year, I would say that they are really unmotivated. Ross

would rather be outside running around. He‟s a very physical kid, so he

just doesn‟t see the point of having to sit down and read anything. Kaytie

is unmotivated unless it‟s something about hunting, fishing, stuff that she

does with her dad and her brothers. She could care less and doesn‟t see the

point either. So, I know that there‟re gaps there, but I think some of those

gaps are sort of self-induced where every year they haven‟t seen the point

and they don‟t work at it. And then the teacher can only do so much with

the rest of the class too…And you know I‟m not saying that they didn‟t do

their job, it just that they don‟t care so they‟ve through the years missed

things because they haven‟t put the effort into learning it, so by the time

they‟re here now, they‟ve got some significant gaps. (Interview, 5/8/09)

Participation in Socially Valued Peer Groups

Another socially marked practice that teachers and students recognized as one that

hierarchically positioned students related to literacy skills was the social groups with

which a student would relate closely, both in and outside the classroom. Mr. Johnson

commented that at Mapleton-Rockford schools, in contrast to other schools where he had

taught, reading served as a marker which identified “smart students.” He stated his

perception that students were often pressured in positive ways in relation to reading.

114

Specifically referring to struggling readers, he commented that he had observed students

with poor reading skills who carried around popular reading books with them to gain

social status: “They wanted to be associated with students who read those books and say

„include me.‟ The pressure in this school is to be good, not bad. I‟ve never seen that

before in my life” (Interview, 6/5/09).

In another case, Miss King described a student who had moved into the district.

He had been identified as gifted in his previous school. His Dad had said that previously

he was always reading, always loved school and had always performed at the top of his

class. After coming to Mapleton, he had not performed in ways that aligned with that

description. The teacher expressed her concern that it was due to the group of students

with which he was associating. She stated,

Well, he‟s clicked in, but he‟s clicked in with the middle group of

kids…so he really interests me, is that sort of a social status issue that he‟s

not performing well. If he had been with the upper kids would he be

performing at a higher level? (Interview, 3/12/08)

Teachers expressed their awareness and concern about how differentiated reading

abilities may impact the social relations between students. Mrs. Harper and Miss King

explained how they frequently grouped students for reading groups and other peer group

activities based on reading level, but sought to mix up groups frequently so that students

would not be stigmatized by being placed in a lower reading group, or being teamed with

better readers to compensate for their weak reading skills (Interviews, 5/7/09, 5/8/09).

There was an explicit recognition by the teachers of the social valuation that was

associated with reading skill.

115

Classroom Performance

Certain types of participation and performance in the classroom gained students

social status with teachers and other students and were perceived to characterize a good

reader. One of the most frequently observed social markers was public demonstrations of

knowledge. Students who volunteered to read aloud, or who frequently raised their hands

to answer teacher questions were considered to be knowledgeable. Students who spoke

up to represent their small group were considered to be leaders and academically

stronger. Several of the struggling readers expressed that they would not read aloud in

class because they are afraid of what other students would think about them. Nico

commented, “The reason I didn‟t like to read in fourth grade was basically…I didn‟t

really know a lot of words and I was afraid I‟d mess up” (Interview, 5/8/09).

Some of the struggling readers seemed to talk, respond and volunteer more in

small groups than in the large group setting. However, even in those situations, they

would take a follower position to another member of the group, and allow a different

group member to be the spokesperson for the group.

Demonstrations of knowledge that counted, particularly regarding reading

comprehension, seemed to be limited to a set of possible responses that were considered

correct. When using the basal readers, the only correct response was the one that was in

the teacher‟s manual. It was observed that teachers would assign students to get together

and complete vocabulary or comprehension exercises, then gather again as a whole class

to discuss the answers. Many of the students that teachers considered good students had

learned to wait until the teacher gave the “official” answer before completing the written

116

assignment. Students had highly complex and nuanced discussions in their groups, and

the teachers expressed the goal of having students process reading texts at “deep” levels;

however, by the middle grades many of the students had learned that expressing their

views was accepted in discussion with peers, but the only answer that counted toward

their grade was the one authorized by a teacher. Mrs. Harper expressed that she used

multiple methods for teaching vocabulary, but the only assessment of vocabulary that

was used for giving grades was the quiz from the reading workbook provided by the

textbook publisher that was given every Friday (Interview, 5/7/09). Miss King expressed

the importance of going back to the text to find an answer. Students were expected to

very specifically respond to comprehension questions based on the reading, and to

provide page numbers for where they found the answers in their texts (Interview, 5/7/09).

When discussing the state achievement tests, Miss King commented that students

were graded down by state assessors based upon responses that did not reflect content of

the reading passage on the test. She stated that the state achievement tests “don‟t want to

know what you know. They want to know what you read” (Interview, 5/7/09). She also

expressed that some students have been counted down on their test responses for using

personal knowledge about a topic to write more than what was in the reading passage at

hand. Because the state achievement tests scores carried great weight for parents,

teachers, administrators and state accreditation, teachers had shifted their instruction in

multiple ways to prepare students for the tests. Third-grade teachers had studied the kinds

of questions that appeared on the Reading Achievement Test and had generated alternate

questions for the readings in the basal reader in “achievement test format” in order to

117

give their students practice on the types of questions that were anticipated on state exams


Teachers in grades three through five had formulated a new teaching strategy to

address areas where their students had done poorly on previous Reading Achievement

Tests. In the past, the students had studied one story per week. The material was read

repeatedly, had new vocabulary introduced and practiced. Story content was discussed in

class. At the end of the week the students were tested using an open book comprehension

test. Because students were not able to have such extensive interaction around a text on

the achievement tests, the teachers had instituted a practice which they called “cold

reads” in which a student had to read a passage independently and respond to

comprehension and vocabulary questions. The teachers perceived that this practice not

only gave students practice for the state tests, but the grades they received on those

assessments better reflected to the parents the student‟s expected score on the

achievement tests (Interviews, 5/7/09, 5/19/09).

Thus, at Mapleton Elementary, what was valued was not simply the acquisition of

a corpus of knowledge, but the ability to interpret the kind of academic demonstration of

that knowledge that counted within the educational context. In third-, fourth- and fifth-

grades, that demonstration involved anticipating what the teacher, textbook publishers or

state assessors had determined was important from a text and giving that answer in the

appropriate format.

118

“Propagating” Struggling Readers

An issue addressed extensively by Administrator C was his perception that in the

Mapleton-Rockford schools, certain school practices and attitudes of school personnel

created the social category of “struggling reader” that provided the social space into

which some students were placed. He believed that some students were marked as

“strugglers” very early in their school career based upon their family background. He also

believed that teachers communicated to those students that school will be especially hard

for them and that they would have difficulty. He compared the school district to a

previous school district where he had worked, and where he felt there was an overall

social movement toward student success rather than student struggle. He commented:

We give them a colored lens, I think, very early, that we expect them to

have all of these hurdles to jump…We expect it, and they‟re looking for

hurdles instead of looking at the finish line, they‟re looking for hurdles.

Glass half full, glass half empty. (Interview, 6/30/08)

In addition, Administrator C described some of the teaching methodology and

institutional policies related to teaching reading at Mapleton Elementary. He believed that

features of the way that reading was taught made it a chore for students and thereby

disadvantaged students who did not have pleasurable experiences with literacy in their

homes. He stated:

I think, as a principal, one of the messages to teachers is to make sure that

we‟re not propagating and developing struggling readers. I‟m really

interested in seeing more grouping among, within the classrooms and

differentiation to try to help accommodate, addressing specific needs of

specific kids. I would say we are not doing as good a job as we could in

promoting motivation to learn to read…We are still heavily into basal

readers – which there are pros and cons to that, but I‟m sure that students

aren‟t…getting all the opportunity to learn the joy of reading and why we

should read – whether that‟s to understand text and become a better social

119

studies, science, math student or whether that‟s the enjoyment of a really

good book. Because part of it is the infrastructure that we have in place for

grading and evaluating. We can‟t give an assignment in school unless we

give a grade in school, so that‟s really a difficult place to be. Now when

I‟m just learning to read, and whatever those little sparks of interest that

develop, wherever those are, I‟m getting that obstacle of having to stop,

having to check my comprehension, having to stay with other kids in the

class; having to follow at the very point that I‟m an emerging reader.

That‟s my concern about us propagating struggling readers. (Interview,

6/30/08)

He continued by speaking of the combination effect of school policies and methods that

discouraged students from reading and homes that did not support reading:

And then we combine that with homes that are not conducive to reading

and we have children that go home and do their own cooking, babysitting

siblings, so are these kids really getting any of the opportunity to learn the

value of it? I don‟t know. (Interview, 6/30/08)

The administrator recognized that students at Mapleton Elementary School

needed to be able to accept and negotiate school types of reading practices and personnel

attitudes that presented reading as work and allowed little opportunity to gain enjoyment

from the reading. He associated some of these difficulties with legal requirements that

were placed on public schools in a data-driven era, and expressed that policies such as

“No Child Left Behind” promoted policies and attitudes that created the social role of

“struggling reader” into which some students were placed.

Implications of Time in Defining a Struggling Reader

The definition of the concept of a “struggling reader” is a time bound conception.

In current social thought, school is conceived of as a time period in a young person‟s life,

generally the period between ages five and eighteen. The time before school is labeled as

“preschool” indicating that the school time frame is considered central, and the time

120

before and after the school period is labeled in a way that demonstrates the focused

significance of the time period labeled as “school years.” As Zerubavel (2003) indicates,

one of the mnemonic devices that collectively mark this time frame as significant is the

social rituals that are associated with the start and end of a time period. The first day of

school is marked in a child‟s life as a significant break or beginning of a new phase,

indicated by the way that parents buy special clothes, lunch boxes, etc. and take photos of

the momentous day. It is considered by many the point at which the child leaves the

home and enters the wider society. Likewise, high school graduation is marked

significantly by social rituals, usually more so than subsequent graduations. The entire

senior year in high school is marked out as a “special time” indicating a social transition

from youth to adulthood, often described as a “coming of age.” This passage is marked

by a long and expensive series of rituals including senior pictures, senior trips, senior

prom, class rings with the graduation year imprinted, caps and gowns and graduation

open houses that feature scrapbooks or “shrines” that include artifacts commemorating

the time period of grades Kindergarten through Twelve. Thus literacy and literacy

acquisition as conceived of as a school activity, is embedded in a time bound framework

of school that places expectations on individuals to perform in socially accepted and

expected ways within socially accepted and expected time frames.

The school years are further broken down into calendrical cycles of years in

which nine months (or 180 days) are assigned as a time frame in which students are

expected to demonstrate their progress in socially marked actions for which they are

publicly evaluated. With the coming of “No Child Left Behind,” the federal government

121

and states have written down academic expectations for each content area and have

assigned certain actions to the time periods that are labeled as grades. The schools are

mandated to send home booklets that publicly declare to families and communities “What

Your Child Should Learn in ____ Grade.” This act has socially constructed frameworks

that demand not only that a child should demonstrate a culturally established set of

actions to be considered competent, but that they should do it within a relatively short

time frame, and that they should continue doing it repeatedly year after year for a period

of thirteen years in succession. At the end of each time period or grade, students are

evaluated through the means of a standardized written examination mandated by law that

is considered to be an appropriate judgment of whether or not each student met the school

expectations within the time frame. Based upon the results of the tests, students as well as

schools are placed into categories of valuation and then moved forward to a conceptually

conceived, subsequent time frame, carrying the social implications of those labels.

Over time, expectations for student actions that qualify as acceptable progress in

school have changed, giving evidence that school expectations are an arbitrary social

construction. Teacher V commented on the change in reading demands:

Part of the problem that I see now, within just recent years, because the

state requirements have changed so drastically, that we didn‟t used to

require kindergartners to read. Now we do. And the children haven‟t

changed that much [laughing]. We have changed what we require of them.

And some children are certainly going to be just fine. And they‟re going to

be able to read by the end of the year. But for some children I think that is

an unfair burden. (Interview, 5/27/09)

Further, if a child is unable to perform the expected actions within the expected time

frame, he or she is considered faulty.

122

The concept of deficit permeated the discourse that school personnel used in

talking about struggling readers. Students whose home social patterns did not align with

those expected by the school were labeled “at risk,” sometimes at birth. School personnel

expected that parents and community members would teach and socialize their children

in certain ways, expressed in the ways that schools provide materials and training for

parents so that they could “properly” prepare their children to enter school. At school

entry, students were tested for “readiness,” or evaluated as to whether they had developed

the set of socially established patterns that were considered necessary to make adequate

progress in school. If the students fell short in these areas, they were sent to

“intervention.” The term itself has social connotations of incompetence and insufficiency.

Further, if students did not respond to intervention within a relatively short time frame

and temporally “catch up” with the mainstream, they were then labeled as needing special

education and placed in an alternative educational stream. Sometimes when students were

unable to meet academic expectations even at the early grade levels, students were passed

from grade to grade, facing repeated negative valuations of their skills and placed in the

social position of being perpetually behind their peers.

This concept of time was made evident in the ways that administrators and

teachers defined a struggling reader in their interviews. Teacher Z related reading

difficulties to differences in maturity:

Researcher: What do you perceive to be the biggest challenge this school

faces as far as improving reading skills or addressing student needs in

reading?

Teacher Z: Okay. You know with the kids, it‟s maturity level. You know

if you don‟t get them at the right time, they‟re gonna struggle. If you get

123

them at the peak time, when they‟re ready to read and ready to go on, you

just have no trouble at all. And, of course there‟s cut off dates and there‟s

no way to cut off and say this kid is going to be mature at this date.

There‟s just not. And so that‟s where I see my strugglers – the ones that

are a little bit immature. (Interview, 5/22/09)

In discussing the issue of retaining a child in a grade if they have not made the progress

that is outlined by the state standards, Teacher V commented on her perception of how

time was implicated in student academic success:

I tried as a teacher to communicate with those parents, particularly the

parents of struggling children, as I said, from the very beginning on.

Several times a year I would meet with them and let them know, this is

where they should be at this point, this is where they are. This is what they

need to know by the end of the year, this is what they know now. So it

wasn‟t a surprise. And I tried to make sure it wasn‟t a surprise. There are

always parents who just do not want the stigma of having their children

retained. Most of the time, the parents understood the need for more time,

and that‟s how I would present it to the parents – that the child needs more

time. They‟re just not ready yet and they didn‟t all learn to walk at the

same time, they‟re not all going to read at the same time. (Interview,

5/27/09)

Thus, the term “struggling reader” was conceived of in terms of students who were

unable to meet state mandated standards within the prescribed time frame of the school

calendar. Though the establishment of both time frames and expectations for student

activity within those time frames are social constructions, time and being able to “keep

up” were cited as key components in defining a student as struggling.

Small Town Surveillance

A final feature of the context that relates to the peer-to-peer interactions around

literacy and which was expressed by several participants was the atmosphere of

surveillance that was maintained in the community. School personnel described this

feature related to how community members knew about and monitored each others‟

124

activities and felt the right and responsibility to interject themselves into each others‟

business. Some parents and community members kept each other informed about what

happened at school and contacted school personnel when they had opinions about how

the school should be run, or how the children should be treated.

Teachers commented that parents kept close tabs on what their children did at

school and regularly took sides against the teacher based on the word of the student.

Two administrators also mentioned the very judgmental nature of the community.

Administrator C said that community members were expected to adhere to strict rules of

conduct, some of which were never made explicit:

[T]his school I do believe is very unique in that it is a judgmental

place… In many levels….We‟re much more comfortable here in

Mapleton with basically not being proactive but waiting for the kid to

mess up, react by punishing, and then the child has to learn by default

they have to learn what‟s expected. I‟ve been in eight different districts,

okay, so I can kind of speak as a person coming to Mapleton and I can

say this is unique, okay? And that is that you can have an individual in

front of you that does 25 things wonderfully, okay? If he was seen

having a beer, somewhere…Wipe him off the table. So, there is that

judgmental, condemning, you know, and I‟m, I‟ve really battled that

with staff and their relationship with students. Uh, you know, good little

Susie told me you know bad little Tommy did xyz, so I took bad little

Tommy‟s recess today. Wait a minute. Who, first of all who is defining

Susie as being so good, and Tommy as being so bad and those kind of

things are huge. And I don‟t know how much of that could even transfer

into school performance. I‟m a bad kid. I‟m one of the kids who you

know… is judged to be lesser. (Interview, 6/30/08)

Administrator B spoke of receiving negative feedback from the community when

discipline was conducted at the school. Parents came to school to argue with the

principals about events that had occurred. One principal was called a liar by a parent. Not

only do the parents get involved in discipline issues, others in the community had also

125

called the school to complain about what happened, often in cases where they did not

even know the students. In one instance, the principal indicated that the problem was over

at the school, but the event continued to be talked about through the community. The

principal received six phone calls from parents who didn‟t know the victim. The principal

called such people, “pot-stirrers” (Interview, 5/22/09).

Further, Administrator B expressed that the community took it upon themselves to

extend or intensify certain disciplinary actions against students by ostracizing the

offenders in the community. In one event, the students were disciplined at school.

However, certain parents did not agree that the punishment had been harsh enough, and

rallied parents to call and encourage the administrators to carry out a more severe

penalty. In the principal‟s words, the parents “wanted them to drip blood. They were

vicious” (Interview, 5/22/09).

From the comments of the students and the school personnel, community

members recognized that they were closely observed, and that there were social

consequences for socially unaccepted actions. School personnel perceived a general

distrust between school and community so that families monitored the actions of the

school personnel and intervened when they perceived that the school had not treated a

student in the way that they wished. The small town nature of the school population

meant that students were grouped into classes with one another repeatedly over time.

Community members worked together to monitor school activities and knew the families

of their children‟s classmates. They took it upon themselves to correct any perceived

wrongs.

126

Summary

Interactions occur within a complicated network of historical and social

dimensions. In order to analyze and interpret micro-level interactions within a classroom,

it was important to describe the context in which the micro-level interactions took place.

This description does not claim to be comprehensive, but has focused on a number of the

social features that intersect in the lives and community of the students being studied

based upon the information provided in informant interviews and observations during

data collection. The selected data related to social beliefs and practices that previous

researchers have demonstrated to be influential related to literacy learning.

Findings indicated that school personnel categorized most students into three

social groups: the university people, the agricultural community and the low-income

group. School personnel associated literacy learning practices with these three groups,

and indicated the existence of differentiated expectations based upon the student‟s social

group or family. Some families within the community used a local dialect that is a sub-

dialect of Appalachian English. Though school personnel viewed the local dialect as

dispreferred for school, there was little consideration as to how the dialect was associated

with literacy learning or struggling readers. School personnel also recognized that home

literacy practices of some families in the community did not align with school literacy

practices. Families were provided with educational materials and expected to work with

their preschool children in order that children would enter Kindergarten with prerequisite

social and academic skills.

127

School personnel maintained a set of expectations that qualified students as “good

readers” which involved both personal and classroom literacy practices. These included

hard work and independence, self-motivation and participation in socially valued peer

groups. One administrator expressed concern that some those expectations were

implicated in the social construction of a group of student who were considered to be

struggling readers. Related to this, the practice of close surveillance of the school and

students played a role in organizing the social structures surrounding literacy learning.

The next chapter focuses more narrowly on struggling readers, and particularly

their interactions within their classroom that intersect to constitute students as struggling

readers. An understanding of the milieu in which the students lived and in which they had

been socialized informs the interpretations that follow.

128

CHAPTER 5: SOCIALLY CONSTITUTING STRUGGLING READERS AMONG

PEERS

Introduction

The study seeks to address the questions: 1) How do some middle childhood

students come to be socially marked as struggling readers? 2) How are peer-to-peer

interactions around literacy events implicated in such positioning? 3) How do students

use literacy practices in ways that socially differentiate some students as struggling

readers or hierarchically position one another based on literacy skills? This chapter

examines classroom interactions of the eight third-, fourth- and fifth-grade students who

their teachers identified as struggling readers during the two school years covered in this

research project. Three of those students were observed for two years – Kaytie for third

and fourth grade, and Michelle and Nico for fourth and fifth grade. The other five were

observed for one school year each – Gary in third grade, Josh, Ross, and Flirty in fourth

grade, and Shawna in fifth grade. The focus of this analysis is to describe how academic

practices and social interactions intersected in the lives of these students in ways that

socially marked them as struggling readers and how the students consequently formed a

struggling reader habitus. Other studies have focused on what institutions or teachers do

in the classroom and the impact of adult interactions on students. This study seeks to

build theoretical constructs about what students do in the classroom when they are

working together on literacy activities that socially distinguish some students in ways that

relegate them to the status of struggling reader.

129

This chapter analyzes social interactions in which the students engaged that

served to socialize them into a struggling reader habitus. Though the analysis is based

upon the entire corpus of data (described in Chapter 3), five classroom events have been

selected which exemplify a number of the features that were observed repeatedly over the

two year time span. Each of the focal events transpired over an extended period of

classroom time; the lengthy transcripts of the four events in their entirety are included in

Appendix B. Segments of the transcripts will be used to illustrate each point.

Transcription conventions for the transcripts are in Appendix C.

The chapter is divided into four strands that address social processes that

were repeatedly observed as being involved in the constitution of students as struggling

readers in peer-to-peer interactions during classroom activities. The four strands are: 1)

the use of oral reading fluency as a social marker, 2) construction of hierarchical social

relations, 3) managing institutional literacy practices, and 4) enactments of “struggling.”

Classroom Analysis

The analysis of video and audio recorded student interactions during daily

teacher-scheduled classroom activities and the audio recordings of student interviews

focused on the interactional processes by which some students were socially constituted

as struggling readers. The corpus of data included sets of video-taped classroom lessons,

audio-taped interviews, field notes and samples of student work. From the corpus of

data, five video segments were selected for detailed analysis based upon the following

features: 1) the videos captured classroom literacy events that were conducted as small

group activities, which allowed analysis of peer-to-peer interactions; 2) the group under

130

observation included one or more of the students who had been identified by their

teachers as a struggling reader; 3) the segment was a representative sample of other such

events that occurred over the course of the video-recording; and, 4) the segment

represented the best quality audio and video of similar events so that more detailed

analysis could be conducted. In addition, as shown in the chart below, the set of videos

represented interactions among a variety of students in both Language Arts and Science

classes, and in multiple classrooms.

Event

Number

Type of Literacy

Event

Subject

Area and

Topic

Activity

Structure Participants Date

1 Round-robin

reading aloud of a

story with

discussion

Language

Arts –

Reading a

story from

the basal

reader

Small

group with

teacher

present

4th

Grade:

Emily

Julie

Junior

Michelle

Nico

Tex

Ms. Smith

2/14/08

2 Reading a chapter

from the literature

book out loud to

one another and

answering

comprehension

questions in a

journal

Chapter 4 of

Stone Fox

Small

group (no

teacher)

3rd Grade:

Annie

Ethan

Sam

Stephanie

Stephen

10/5/07

Continued

Table 7. List of Analyzed Literacy Events

131

Table 6 continued

3 Reading a chapter

out loud to one

another and

cooperatively

completing written

comprehension

activities

Chapter 7 of

Sarah Plain

and Tall

Partner

work

4th

Grade:

Josh

Tex

10/22/07

4 Cooperatively

answering Science

review questions

Plant Unit Teacher

selected

student

“teams”

competing

against

other

teams.

Teacher is

giving and

evaluating

answers

4th

Grade:

Josh

Michelle

Nico

Tess

Miss King

9/27/07

5 Cooperatively

defining a set of

vocabulary words

by using context

cues from the story

Chapter 2 of

Stone Fox –

Discussing

the term

“harvest”

Small

reading

groups (no

teacher)

3rd

Grade:

Gary

Kristy

Megan

William

10/3/07

As I examined the lessons on a line by line basis, I continuously asked, “What is

happening here?” related to how students interacted with one another, and how they

interacted with the text in ways that resulted in social differentiation that marked some

students as struggling readers. In responding to the question, I focused on ways that

students acted and reacted as they used texts during teacher-arranged activities. As I

worked through the lessons line by line, I noted how students responded to both the

requirements of the task and the social relations that were constructed between students. I

was continuously revising my theoretical framing and problematizing my analysis in a

132

recursive process, seeking to generate theoretical constructs related to how students were

constituted as struggling readers in the middle childhood grades.

Use of Oral Reading Fluency as a Social Marker

The first construct relates to the ways that students used the practice of oral

reading as a way to establish hierarchical social relations and to marginalize certain

classmates with regard to their participation in assigned activities. In the classrooms at

the elementary level, oral reading was pervasive. Students in third-, fourth- and fifth-

grade classrooms had peer reading groups in which they read aloud to one another, as

well as multiple situations where they read aloud to the whole class or one-on-one in

partner pairs. In addition to oral reading in the Language Arts class, students were

expected to read aloud in Math, Science and Social Studies. The use of round-robin

reading was a common practice in both small groups and in the larger classrooms.

The third-grade teacher, Mrs. Harper reported that she used an informal oral

reading fluency test at the beginning of each year to identify students‟ reading levels, and

to place them into reading groups for activities. She emphasized that not all groupings

were based on reading level, but for most activities it was important to have some fluent

readers in each group:

I like to group them according to ability, but I don‟t like to do that all the

time because I do think that if you sit with a group of students who are all

struggling with reading – if it‟s because they can‟t gather any meaning, if

they can‟t answer any higher level thinking questions because they‟re not

grasping the content, I like them to be with children who are able to do

that so they can learn from them or they can hear a child reading fluently

or using expression or when they get to a punctuation mark, pausing.

Things like that. So I really think that they can learn from example, you

know, from the other kids. (Interview, 5/7/09)

133

At times during the year, both the third- and fourth-grade teachers grouped

struggling readers together for more intensive instruction on specific reading skills. This

practice in and of itself served as a social division of students into teacher-evaluated

groupings that identified some students as weaker readers. Interestingly, none of the

students who were interviewed and asked about how they identified one another as strong

or weak readers mentioned the reading groups as an identifier.

The following analysis is of the “lower” reading group in fourth-grade. The

teacher grouped the students so that they could get additional, more intensive instruction

on what she termed “basic reading skills.” This group was run by the student teacher

from the local university who was assigned to the classroom at the time. Instruction

involved oral reading of a story from the basal reader with discussion of vocabulary

words and comprehension questions about the story. The reading group included

Michelle, Nico, and Flirty along with Junior, Emily, Julie and Tex. The focus of this

analysis is the ways that the students responded to each other and how that changed their

actions, resulting in the social labeling of Michelle as a struggling reader. In analyzing

the interactions I make a distinction between the terms “response” and “uptake,” though

the two concepts are related and often overlap. I use the term “response” to indicate the

next utterance that a new speaker makes as part of turn-taking in conversation that shows

acknowledgement of what the previous speaker said. I use the term “uptake” to indicate

some change of action that results from a previous utterance and shows a reaction to the

previous speaker‟s meaning. The following transcript shows an analysis of the social

interactions that occurred during round robin reading of the basal reader:

134


1 Ms.

Smith:

Michelle, Michelle was raising

her hand and

volunteering.

2 read on page 314 for us.

3 Michelle: “xxxxx Grandfather trying to look on the

sunny side of things.

Reading. Michelle

reads slowly but

fluently. She

continues to 2:32.

4 They were sitting on the front

porch swing xxxxx”

Michelle

mumbles the

last word.

5 Julie: Xxxx Whispering word to

Michelle. Julie

jumped in to correct

Michelle‟s reading

error. She used a

whispered tone and

leaned toward

Michelle in a

performance of

surreptitiousness.

6 Michelle: listening to the evening cooing Attempted

correction –

still incorrect.

7 Julie: choir Whispering to

Michelle. Julie

again whispers

the correct

word to

Michelle.

8 Michelle: co-er Second

correction

attempt.

Continued

Transcript 2. Michelle in Reading Group

135


9 Ms.

Smith:

choir Teacher

publicly

pronounces the

correct word.

10 Julie: choir Speaks out loud in

an exasperated

voice. Julie

expressed both her

frustration that

Michelle did not use

her cues and

publicly declared

that her attempts to

correct Michelle had

been accurate.

11 Michelle: That‟s not choir. Michelle reacts to

correction,

responding because

Julie had skipped the

word “evening.”

Julie reached over

and pointed to

Michelle‟s book.

Public indication that

Julie interpreted

Michelle‟s negative

reaction to the

correction as a sign

of incompetence.

She sought to

redirect Michelle,

and at the same time

to publicly indicate

her superiority in

understanding.

12 Teacher: choir Teacher repeats

correction from line

8.

13 Michelle: I said it. Defended her

reading of

“choir.”

Continued

136


14 Julie: listening to the choir of birds Pointing at

text. Publicly

read the

passage aloud.

She again

skipped the

word

“evening.”

15 Michelle: What? Didn‟t believe the

reading was

accurate (which it

wasn‟t) or didn‟t

hear.

16 Julie: the co-er of birds? Mockingly

imitates

Michelle‟s

reading,

scrunching her

face and

shaking her

head no.

Expresses

disdain toward

Michelle for

the misreading.

17 Michelle: Where are you? Leaning over to look

in Julie‟s book.

Expression of

confusion and

embarrassment.

18 Nico: xxxx Reading ahead.

19 Ms.

Smith:

We‟re not there yet. To Nico. Reprimand

to stay with the

public reader.

20 Julie: Right here. Pointed to her book,

21 “Sitting on the porch swing

listening to the evening choir of

birds.”

then correctly read

the passage.

22 Ms.

Smith:

choir of birds. Expansion of

8 and 11; cue

to proceed.

Continued

137


23 Michelle: choir of birds. Repeated end of

phrase and moved on.

24 Aunt Linzy had gone to visit Mrs.

Xxxx.

25 Since she was a v..v.

26 Julie: xxxxxx Whispering to

Michelle.

Unsolicited

assistance.

27 Ms.

Smith:

Vegetarian Teacher assist.

28 Michelle: vegetarian,

29 she had gone to exchange re-sipes Mispronounced

“recipes.”

30 Ms.

Smith:

recipes Immediate

teacher

correction.

31 Michelle: recipes [giggling] Embarrassed giggle

and a glance to Julie.

32 about how to make xxx sticks and

to make soap, oops

33 …to make soup from beans. Both girls covered

their faces and

giggled for two

seconds. No response

from other students.

In this passage, a number of features that socially marked the struggling reader during

oral class reading were noted. Like many of the struggling readers that were observed,

Michelle consistently read at a slower than average pace and made multiple decoding

errors. When she made an error or hesitated in pronouncing a word, either the teacher or a

peer would quickly intervene to provide the word for the reader. It appeared that students

had been taught or socialized to the pattern of publicly correcting miscues during oral

reading, since they regularly corrected their peers. Sometimes when teachers were

138

present, the teacher did the correcting, but in peer groups students followed the same

practice, imitating what the teachers had done. In this case, a teacher was present, but

Julie made the corrections in a whispered voice, directed toward Michelle. The practice

provided accurate pronunciation of words, but also publicized to the entire group that the

reader had made an error, and communicated to Michelle that she was not only wrong,

but also was unable to independently complete the requested task.

The social nature of this pattern of public reproof and interruption was apparent in

the uptake by Michelle to the correction. Julie was one of her friends, and was also part

of the “lower” reading group. However, Julie took it upon herself to correct Michelle‟s

errors in lines 4, 6, 13, 19 and 22. Though her whispered, surreptitious corrections

appeared to be an effort to unobtrusively assist her friend in fluent reading, Michelle‟s

responses made it clear that she was at least embarrassed and perhaps annoyed by the

gestures. In lines 5 to 21, Michelle was having difficulty with the phrase “evening choir,”

but both Julie and the teacher focused on the word “choir.” Michelle responded to their

corrections by questioning their reading, and defending her own position, since her

friend‟s reading of the passage was equally incorrect. When she defensively responded to

Julie‟s intervention in line 10 by stating, “That‟s not choir,” her reaction was interpreted

by both Julie and the teacher as confusion. The teacher repeated the word “choir,” (line

11) and Michelle responded defensively, “I said it” (line 12). However, Julie‟s uptake in

line 13 indicated that she still thought that Michelle was having difficulty with decoding

the word “choir.” Both Julie and the teacher failed to take Michelle‟s contestation of their

assistance seriously. Further, at two points during the interchange, Julie publicly made

139

fun of Michelle, capitalizing on her perceived inability to decode the word “choir.” In

line 9, Julie repeated the word “choir” in an exasperated voice after the teacher had

pronounced the word to help Michelle. Julie had been trying to whisper the word to

Michelle, and her exasperated tone reflected her social disapproval that Michelle had not

taken up her cue. It also made public the fact that she had known the word, while

Michelle had not. Secondly, in line 15, Julie again reacted with frustration when Michelle

would not repeat the phrase “listening to the choir of birds” from line 13. Michelle

recognized that Julie had omitted the word “evening,” and responded with “What?” Julie

reacted by scrunching up her face and imitating Michelle‟s incorrect reading from line 7

in a mocking tone. She again publicly advertised Michelle‟s incorrect reading and further

expressed exasperation with her continued refusal to read the passage as Julie had

prompted.

As the brief interchange progressed, additional evidence of social tension was

seen. After getting past the troublesome phrase “evening choir” by shortening it in the

way that the teacher prescribed, Michelle was stumped again by the word “vegetarian.”

Again, Julie jumped to her aid with a whispered correction. The teacher immediately

intervened with a public correction, and Michelle read a few words before she

mispronounced “recipe.” By this point her demeanor was becoming more flustered,

evidenced by her embarrassed giggle as she corrected the reading of “recipe.” Her

additional error of “soap” for “soup” caused a reaction for both Julie and Michelle. They

glanced at each other, began giggling and then covered their faces with the book for a

few seconds. At the same time, there is evidence that the rest of the group had stopped

140

attending to the public reading. Observations of other group members showed that they

had read ahead and were focused on their own reading, not trying to follow the disjointed

reading and drama between Michelle and Julie. Nico‟s remark, followed by the teacher‟s

comment indicated that he had read ahead. The other group members failed to respond in

any way to Michelle‟s humorous misreading of soap for soup, which further indicated

their lack of attention. This aligns with the observation of Miss King, who observed that

oral reading for struggling readers created social tensions among students and positioned

them as targets for social ostracism:

Juan and Tess read – and even Bam, when he reads – he reads very

fluently, and he reads with probably more emotion than anyone else in the

entire room as far as inflection and that kind of stuff. And then, you know,

you get to the person that struggles every four or five words and

everybody wants him to just say it already…but I know it‟s something that

the kids, the other better readers sometimes learn from teachers to do it,

and sometimes they‟re just impatient because they‟ve already read three

paragraphs ahead. You‟re trying to keep them all together and they just

want to move on…And the other girls kind of – it‟s even been hard in the

classroom when you‟re reading to tell them, don‟t tell somebody what the

word is when they can‟t get it. Let them try it first. But when they can‟t, I

mean when you do that round robin and there‟s a time limit…they start

comparing themselves with the other readers. (Interview, 3/12/08)

Struggling readers themselves, frequently commented on the social pressures

associated with reading aloud, especially in large groups. When the reading aloud

occurred on a voluntary basis, the students (with the exception of Michelle) rarely

volunteered. Flirty stated,

When I‟m reading out loud, like I mess up a lot because I get nervous, like

saying, „Am I going to mess up?‟ And all the people just listen to me. But

when I read in my mind, I think I read good. (Interview, 5/13/09)

141

Nico felt that his oral reading had improved significantly between fourth and fifth grades.

He remarked on his experience of fourth grade: “The reason I didn‟t like to read in fourth

grade was basically…I didn‟t really know a lot of words and I was afraid I‟d mess up”

(Interview, 5/8/09). Shawna stated that she reads out loud in class when she feels like it:

Researcher: When do you feel like reading?

Shawna: I don‟t know. Or if he don‟t call on me, I just read it in my

head…‟cause I get shy. (Interview, 5/8/09)

Through the required performance of public oral reading, students became socially

positioned by the teachers and peers as struggling readers. Explicit and implicit public

critique that they experienced regularly when they read aloud increased the nervousness

associated with public reading. In a number of cases, decoding or fluency errors seemed

to intensify once students had made some errors and been publicly corrected. Some of the

struggling readers stated that they felt that they were better readers when they read

silently to themselves. Most of them indicated in varying ways that they were very aware

of the negative social impressions that they were communicating to their peers when they

read aloud. This negative peer pressure resulted in avoidance of oral reading, an

expressed dislike of reading in general and/or an image of themselves as poor reader.

An additional transcript of students interacting around oral reading showed how

students marginalized struggling readers with regard to participation and/or verbally

harassed them about their oral reading competency. In small reading groups without

supervision of the teacher, the social environment surrounding oral reading frequently

became highly competitive, and students vied for opportunities to talk, to read aloud and

to correct a peer‟s reading miscues. In these competitive environments, the struggling

142

readers tended to socially disconnect themselves from the group, and were generally

ignored. The other group members either skipped over them, treated them as if they were

invisible or gave them opportunities to pass on their turns. Some students expressed

sympathy for the classmates who had developed a reputation as poor oral reading

performers. Other peers were impatient and openly frustrated with poor readers.

Classmates who were grouped with struggling readers frequently responded with facial or

bodily gestures that expressed displeasure (shrugged shoulders, rolled eyes, knowing

glances exchanged between peers) when the struggling reader was given the floor to read.

Foregrounded in the following analysis is the way that peer responses and

critiques of one another reveal the establishment or maintenance of hierarchical social

relations through bids to establish the authoritative positions in the group. In his

discussion of the field of cultural production related to writers and artists, Bourdieu

(1993) indicated that one site of struggle for social influence is the establishment of

legitimacy (p. 42). He makes the case that responses to others‟ utterances or

performances are a form of evaluation that contrasts the person‟s action with the actions

of others. In responding to someone, the responder claims a right to evaluate. The right to

evaluate is framed in one of three ways. First, an evaluation may be based upon a

person‟s expertise in an area. This evaluation may be made as a formative evaluation in

an effort to encourage change or as a final assessment. Second, an evaluation may be

based on an institutional position where one person has been given authority over another

and may make an evaluation because he or she has the power to do so. Third, an

evaluation may be based upon a dialogic interaction where interacts interactively

143

consider and assess. The framing of an evaluation proposes a social relationship between

the assessor, the assessee and others who witnesses the exchange, establishing varying

degrees of authority. The relation of authority is established when interactants take up on

the proposal in any number of ways such as acting as if it were true, having other people

act as if it were true, renegotiating the relations or rejecting the proposal. Analysis of

claims of the right to critique (which Bourdieu identifies as a form of symbolic capital)

gives evidence of how students negotiated the social interactions of the reading group in

ways that allowed some students to take authoritative roles over others. For this transcript

I have added an additional column that systematically displays how student evaluations

of each other resulted in differentiated social positions.

The following transcript of a small reading group which included Steven shows

how social patterns were established both by Steven himself and by other group members

that resulted in him not reading aloud in the group. Students negotiated for authoritative

positions by assessing and critiquing one another‟s reading performance and group

participation. In the following transcript, the students had been instructed to take turns

reading a chapter of the text, Stone Fox. The students had negotiated and agreed to read

one-by-one, moving around the group in a clockwise direction. The students had not

negotiated how much text each person would read, so the quantity had varied.

Speaker Utterance Notes Sites of Struggle

39 Ethan: It‟s Steven‟s turn. Pointing with his

book.

Ethan claims the

right to organize

group activity.

Continued

Transcript 3. Stephen‟s Reading Group - Segment 1

144


40 Right here where it says

xxx

Pointing to place in

Steven‟s book.

Publicly directed

Steven to the start

point in the book.

41 Sam: Aren‟t you special,

Steven.

Spoken in a

mocking tone. Sam

apparently is

resisting the

change of reader

from Sam to

Steven that Ethan

has proposed.

Steven changes

gaze from the book

to Sam.

Evaluates Steven

as “special,”

which from the

tone is a negative

valuation.

Claims the right to

label Steven

negatively.

42 Annie: You‟re not even

reading, Steven.

Impatient tone.

Steven has

hesitated to begin

because of Sam‟s

interjection.

Evaluates Steven‟s

action or

participation in the

group. Claims the

right to assess

appropriate

participation of

peer. May be

uptake on Sam‟s

negative valuation.

43 Steven: “xxxxxx”// Steven starts

reading quietly.

Steven validates

Annie‟s right to

evaluate his

performance by

beginning to read

based on the

illocutionary force

of her statement.

44 Sam: //Special,

special//

Overlapping with

Steven‟s reading.

Continued

valuation of

Steven from line

41.

Continued

145


45 Annie:

//I can‟t hear you.

Overlapping both

Steven and Sam.

Evaluation of

Steven‟s reading

as inappropriate.

Reiterates right to

evaluate peer

performance that

was made in line

42 and validated

in line 43.

In this interaction, the other students in the group collaboratively negotiated a situation

where Steven, the struggling reader of the group, was socially marked in multiple ways as

deficient in his ability to fulfill the requirements of the group reading task. Further, the

group members marked him as different in the ways that they socially interacted with him

in comparison with other members of the group.

The group was arranged in a circle with Steven sitting between Sam and Ethan.

Sam had been reading until Ethan declared a change in reader. Sam had read for one

minute then engaged in a short verbal exchange with Stephanie. Ethan interpreted that

digression from the oral reading to indicate Sam‟s end of turn, and Ethan both declared

that it was Steven‟s turn and physically directed Steven by pointing to the place in the

text where Sam had stopped reading. Sam reacted to Ethan‟s proposed change of reader

by disrupting the pattern that had been established in the group. For previous turn

changes, when a new reader was proposed using the clockwise sequence of participation

movement, the new reader would begin reading uncontested. In this case, Sam responded

to Ethan‟s proposal by turning his body and addressing Steven. Using a mocking tone,

Sam started the first of a series of comments to Steven, “Aren‟t you special, Steven,” in

146

line 37, which he used to disrupt Steven‟s turn at reading. At the same time, Sam asserted

authority over Steven by claiming the right to publicly evaluate him, giving him the label

“special.” Steven responded to Sam‟s verbal assault by hesitating, and turning his gaze

toward Sam. At that point, Annie chimed in with a critical remark and Sam turned his

gaze toward his book and began reading his assigned portion, though he used a very quiet

voice, ignoring the ongoing taunting from Sam that overlapped with the reading.

Along with the disrespectful remarks being made by Sam, Annie also began

making a series of comments. By observing her remarks in lines 38 and 41 (and lines 48,

50, 56, 65, and 68 in upcoming segments), it is clear that Annie wanted to proceed in the

reading of the chapter and was impatient with any perceived delay. The tenor of the

remarks to Steven is noteworthy. In line 38, she directed a remark to Steven, “You‟re not

even reading, Steven.” Though he had just been given the floor to read by Ethan, Annie‟s

use of a declarative statement, rather than a request or imperative, and the use of the

adverb “even” gave the remark a disdainful tone. Less than two seconds had transpired

from the time that Ethan proposed a change of reader, yet Annie used a strident tone of

voice that indicated impatience. She also ignored the interruption by Sam. In this way

Annie was claiming the right to evaluate Steven‟s reading performance and positioning

herself as an authority in the group by organizing and evaluating the group‟s activity.

Steven interpreted the remark as a command to begin reading as seen by his uptake of

starting to read quietly. In this way he validated Annie‟s proposed right to run the reading

activity. Annie, interrupted after three seconds to comment, “I can‟t hear you.” Even

though Steven was reading at a very low volume, the other group members were also to

147

blame for the fact that Annie was unable to hear since they were carrying on a separate

conversation, but her comment was directed to Steven. This followed on Steven‟s

validation of her claim to authority and reinforced her claim to have the right to organize

Steven‟s actions. Ethan, who was sitting next to Steven, began to silently read along, but

Sam continued his “special” remarks and talked over Steven‟s attempt to read, continuing

his bid for authority to evaluate Steven. Steven responded briefly to his teasing in line 41,

but the rest of the group ignored his ongoing remarks. His bid to valuate Steven was not

validated by the group.

This interaction is informative, since the social reactions to Steven‟s turn at

reading seem unrelated to his actual oral reading performance at this time. Immediately

when he was given the floor, Sam began to treat him disrespectfully and Annie responded

with impatience, both making claims to authority over Steven. The other students in the

group carried on their own conversations and ignored Steven‟s attempt to read. For

previous readers, students had sat quietly and oriented their bodies to look at the reader or

the book without comment. It appears that this interaction hinged on social relations that

had been established prior to this particular event, since group members collaborated in

disrespecting Steven‟s turn to read in comparison to the response that had been given to

others.

Ethan was sitting next to Steven on the other side from Sam and shifted his eye

gaze to his book as Steven began reading quietly. However, when Steven paused in the

reading (after three seconds) because of Annie‟s remark, Ethan interjected with a side

conversation that stopped Steven‟s reading and gained the focus of the group members.

148

46 Ethan: Don‟t touch. Interrupting

Steven‟s reading.

Speaking to Annie

who had touched

the digital

recorder.

Pointing to the

digital recorder.

Steven stops

reading and looks

at Ethan.

Evaluation of

Annie‟s actions.

Claims the right to

direct Annie‟s

activity.

47 Sam: If you touch it you‟ll

blow up the whole xxxx

Redirecting

attention from

Steven to Ethan.

Validates Ethan‟s

claim.

48 Ethan: Plus two more states.

49 Stephanie: xxxx no!

50 Sam: No! Mockingly

repeating

Stephanie‟s

comment in a high

voice.

Evaluation of

Stephanie‟s

remark. Claims

right to evaluate

the

appropriateness of

his peer‟s

response.

51 Steven: “xxxxx”// Begins reading

quietly.

52 Annie: //Did you read

it?

Interrupting

reading.

Evaluating

Steven‟s

performance.

Maintains right to

make evaluations

of peers.

53 Ethan: Yeah, he read it on his

own perfectly

Defending his

friend‟s reading.

Ethan was sitting

close to Steven, so

may have been the

only one that could

hear the reading.

Positive evaluation

of Steven‟s

reading, contesting

Annie‟s negative

evaluation. Claims

the right to

evaluate a peer‟s

reading and to

overrule Annie‟s

evaluation.

Continued

Transcript 4. Steven‟s Reading Group - Segment 2

149


54 Annie: I can‟t hear him. Impatient tone. Defends her right

to evaluate,

contesting Ethan‟s

bid to overrule her.

Just as Steven began reading, Annie interrupted but Ethan also interrupted with a

side remark referring to the digital recorder as an explosive device. This was a

resurrection of a conversation that had begun in lines 12-15 (before the beginning of

transcript 3) at the beginning of the reading group, and which recurred periodically

through the entire class period. Ethan‟s remark was directed at Annie who had touched

the digital recorder. With this remark he was claiming the right to evaluate Annie‟s action

and to organize the group reading. At that point, Sam turned his attention to Ethan‟s

remark, but continued to talk over Steven‟s reading. Steven stopped reading, and his eye

gaze turned to Ethan and Steven. Stephanie also joined the “explosive device”

conversation. During the discussion, the three students vied for an authoritative position

by claiming more knowledge than the others, or contesting the others‟ responses.

Ignoring the interruption and animated interchange between the other group

members, Annie then directed another question to Steven, “Did you read it?” Again her

tone of voice indicated disapproval of Steven‟s performance. This continued her claim to

a right to evaluate Steven‟s reading performance from lines 42 and 45. Ethan came to his

defense by declaring, “Yeah, he read it on his own perfectly.” This statement was clearly

more of an act of alliance with Steven than a statement of fact, since Ethan had been

engaged in the “explosive device” conversation and had not actually heard what Steven

had read. In doing so, Ethan negated Annie‟s claim to evaluate Steven‟s reading and

150

made the claim that he had more authority than Annie did to evaluate the reading. Annie

defended her statement by saying, “I can‟t hear him.” Again, Annie was impatient with

the way the group reading was proceeding, but directed her comments of disapproval

toward Steven and not toward other group members who were breaking the protocol for

reading that had been established previously. Annie publicly criticized Steven with her

implicit comments on his reading performance, but did not remark on the actions of the

other group members that were interfering with Steven‟s ability to complete the task. In

doing so, she resisted Ethan‟s negation of her evaluation and continued to bid for the

right to evaluate Steven.

Up to this point, Stephanie had been engaged in chatting with Sam and had

ignored Steven and his attempt to complete his reading turn. At this point, Stephanie

directed her gaze at Steven and gave him a direct command to start reading.

55 Stephanie: Okay, start reading. (12:01) Didn‟t

recognize that

Steven had been

reading because

she had been

carrying on a

conversation with

Sam about

blowing things up.

Took control of

the group by

giving a command

to start reading.

She and Sam had

continually vied

for the right to

direct the group.

Evaluation of the

progress of the

reading group.

Claims authority to

organize the group

activity.

Continued


151


56 Sam: It‟s my turn. Makes a bid for a

second turn.

Evaluation of

Stephanie‟s bid

and resistance to

her claim to

authority. Sam

makes a claim that

he should organize

group activity.

57 Ethan: You already read Denies Sam‟s bid. Evaluation of

Sam‟s bid. Claims

right to assess the

appropriateness of

a peer‟s bid for a

turn.

58 Stephanie: Yeah it was xxxx/ Defends Ethan‟s

statement and

denies Sam‟s bid.

Also part of the

ongoing power

struggle with Sam

over being group

leader.

Validation of

Ethan‟s claim and

claim of a right to

also assess Sam‟s

bid.

59 Ethan: We‟re on this page. Seeks to direct

group to reading.

Response to line

55. Validates

Stephanie‟s

authority and

claims right to

organize group.

60 Where are we? Confused as to

where Steven had

read.

61 Annie: We‟re on this page,

right here on this page.

Pointing to the

book and showing

Ethan.

Assessment of

Ethan‟s claim to

know where the

group was reading.

Claims right to

evaluate based on

her expertise in

knowing what had

been read.

Continued

152


62 Steven: “xxxxxx”// Reads for 4

seconds. Stephanie

begins quietly

reading out loud

along with Steven

to prompt his

reading.

Response to

Stephanie‟s

command in line

55. Validates her

authority to

organize group and

authority of Ethan

and Stephanie‟s

authority to select

next reader (lines

57-58). Stephanie

makes a claim to

authority by taking

on the role of

helper or

“substitute

teacher” in

assisting Steven

with his reading.

63 Ethan: //Hey, how

come she‟s reading?

Interrupts Steven.

Steven stops

reading. Pointing

to Stephanie.

Questioning

Stephanie‟s right

to be reading.

Negative

assessment of

Stephanie‟s

participation in the

group. Claims the

right to evaluate

appropriateness of

peers‟

participation.

64 Stephanie: Who? Implicit denial of

Ethan‟s charge.

Resists Ethan‟s

assessment. Denies

his right to

evaluate her

performance.

65 Sam: You read it. Pointing to Ethan.

Ethan is next

reader in the

lineup. Sam made

a bid to move

reading past

Steven to the next

reader.

Implicit negative

assessment of

Steven‟s reading.

Claims the right to

change reader.

Continued

153


66 I can‟t find my part.

67 Stephanie: “it was just getting

harder and his face

turned red.”

Reading from

book. Turned gaze

and waved her

bookmark at

Steven. Ignores

Sam‟s bid to move

the reading to

Ethan and seeks to

redirect reading to

Steven. She may

also be justifying

her previous quiet

reading with

Steven.

Evaluation of

Sam‟s claim to

confusion. Claims

right to organize

activity based on

her superior

knowledge.

68 Now you read it. To Steven. Implicitly

evaluates Sam‟s

proposal to change

reader. Claims

right to organize

the group.

69 That‟s where we are.

At this point, Stephanie entered the interactions and took a different interactional

stance toward Steven. She took the floor and gave the direction for Steven to begin

reading. In this way she claimed the right to organize the group‟s activity. She was

apparently unaware of Steven‟s earlier attempts at reading aloud. However, Sam

responded to Stephanie‟s command and declared that it was still his turn. In doing this he

contested Stephanie‟s right to organize the group as well as Steven‟s right to read,

claiming authority over the group. Ethan responded to Sam‟s bid by stating that he had

154

already had his turn. That denial of Sam‟s bid for a turn was supported by Stephanie. In

this way Ethan and Stephanie denied Sam‟s claim to the right to organize the group,

collaboratively claiming that right for themselves. Consequently, Ethan began searching

for where the reading should begin. The only one who had an idea what Steven had

already read was Annie, since she had been attempting to listen to Steven read.

At that point, Steven made another attempt to begin his reading. Stephanie began

to quietly read along with him and to prompt him as he read. It appeared that she

anticipated that he would have difficulty reading, so took it upon herself to provide

reading support from the beginning of his reading turn. Four seconds into his turn, Ethan

interrupted again, with an accusation in the form of a question directed at Stephanie.

“Hey, why is she reading?” Stephanie implicitly denied Ethan‟s claim with her surprised

response of “Who?” Though she had been reading aloud, she publicly denied that she

had. Stephanie had made a claim to authority by taking the position of the help or

“substitute teacher” in reading along with Steven. Ethan contested her authority to do so.

At the same time, Sam took up on the fact that Stephanie had been reading by asking her

to read a segment so he could find his place. Even though it was Steven‟s assigned turn,

Sam ignored Steven and took away his rights as assigned reader by directing his question

to Stephanie.

Stephanie responded to the question, by reading a short segment and declaring to

Steven, “Now you read it. That‟s where we are.” In doing so, she recognized Steven as

the designated reader and gave him the next turn. She also presented herself as the

knowledgeable reader, and minimized Steven‟s participation as an authority in the group

155

by taking it upon herself to indicate what he should have read. In doing so, she evaluated

Steven as needy and denied Sam‟s claim to authority to organize the group that he had

asserted in line 65.

Again, Stephanie‟s response of reading along with Steven and cueing his reading

does not seem to be prompted by Steven having reading difficulties at this point in time.

Though Stephanie‟s response is different from the mocking remarks of Sam or the

impatience of Annie, her unsolicited assistance indicated an expectation that Steven could

not independently complete the required reading. An acknowledgement of the public and

social consequence of her efforts to assist Steven are indicated by Ethan‟s contestation of

her reading as well as Stephanie‟s feigned surprise and denial of Ethan‟s claim. This

gives additional evidence that the group had constructed collective memories about

Steven‟s ability to participate fully in the reading activity, and responded to his reading

turn based upon negative expectations.

At this point, with Stephanie‟s direction, and with social support by Stephanie and

Ethan that it was indeed his turn to read, Steven began reading aloud in an audible voice.

70 Steven: “Little Willie, Little

Willie.”

These four words

are the only ones

that Steven read

with enough

volume to be heard

on the tape.

Validation of

Stephanie‟s claim

to direct the

group‟s activity.

Continued


156


71 You read it. After four words,

he stops and offers

his turn to Ethan

(who is the next

person in the

circle).

Evaluation of

Stephanie‟s

assignment of the

reading task.

Surrenders his turn

to read to next

reader.

72 Ethan: I‟ll read// Uptake on

Steven‟s offer.

Evaluates Steven‟s

offer and asserts

the right to take

the role of next

reader.

73 Sam: //Where are w-

Ethan, you‟re gonna

break the book.

In loud voice.

Pointing at Ethan

who has turned the

binding on the

book back.

Evaluates Ethan‟s

book handling.

Claims right to

control peers‟

actions and make

moral evaluations

of their activity.

74 You‟re gonna break it, Continued from

line 73.

75 You‟re gonna break it. Continued from

line 73.

76 Annie: Just read it. Just read it! Exasperated voice. Evaluation of

Sam‟s interruption.

Claims right to

organize group

action.

77 Ethan: It‟s Steven‟s. Makes an effort to

give Steven his

assigned turn.

Request for group

approval for

change of turn?

Rejection of Sam‟s

proposed change

of reader in line

65. Makes claim to

the right to

evaluate and reject

Sam‟s proposal.

78 Annie: He just read. Declares Steven‟s

turn to be finished.

Evaluates Ethan‟s

proposal to give

Steven a turn.

Claims right to

change readers.

Continued

157


79 Ethan: Then it‟s my turn. Takes up on

offered turn and

prepares to read.

Validates Annie‟s

claim to have the

right to organize.

80 Annie: Then read::: Exasperated voice. Reiterates claim to

organize.

When at last Steven had been given the floor and recognized by all members of

the group, he read only two words, repeated twice. He then turned to Ethan (the next

person in the circle) and quietly directed, “You read it.” By doing so, he was voluntarily

ending his turn and passing the turn to Ethan. Steven‟s voice did not betray exasperation

or frustration though it seems that he had ample reason to feel these emotions. Instead it

appears that he simply chose to end his reading turn. Ethan‟s uptake of “I‟ll read”

indicated his understanding that Steven was passing the reading turn to him.

Sam made another attempt to disrupt proceedings by disapproving of the way that

Ethan was handling his book. He made a bid for the right to evaluate the activities of

group members by criticizing Ethan. His claim was ignored by the group and not

validated. Annie continued her efforts to move the reading forward with her repeated

comment of “Just read it,” but she turned her eye gaze toward Ethan, indicating her

approval of the reader change. Her tone of voice served as an evaluation of the group‟s

activity by expressing disapproval. Here she continued her claim to the right to evaluate

the group in terms of their progress on the reading task. At that point Ethan made a

comment that gave Steven another opportunity to regain the floor by declaring, “It‟s

Steven‟s,” assuming that the listeners understood that it was really still Steven‟s turn.

Here he made a move to pass the authority of the change of reader to the group. Rather

158

than affirming that it was Steven‟s turn, Annie responded to Ethan‟s offer by declaring,

“He just read.” Again she used a declaration, which was understood as a command by

Ethan to take his turn, based upon his uptake to begin reading. It made a public

declaration to the entire group that Steven‟s turn was over. There was no objection by

other group members to this proposed change of reader, validating Annie‟s right to assess

the group progress and assign next reader. Annie responded by another command to

Ethan in an exasperated tone expressing her disapproval with her group mates who were

not completing the reading assignment, when she said, “Then read.” At this point, she

had changed her declarative statements that were veiled directives, to a clear command.

Here, Steven collaborated with the expectations of the group that he would or could not

fulfill the reading assignment and voluntarily passed his reading turn to Ethan. Though

Ethan initially took up on Steven‟s offer, he then sought group approval for the change,

indicating his understanding that Steven had not really had the opportunity to complete

his turn. When he received an affirmation from Annie for the change of reader, and no

objections from other group members, Ethan took up the socially assigned role and began

reading.

Through the interchange, Ethan and Stephanie demonstrated authority in the

group by organizing the movement of readers and controlling their peers‟ activities.

Annie asserted authority through repeated evaluations of the progress of the group in the

reading task and particularly in assessing Steven‟s participation in that progress. Sam

made multiple attempts to assert his authority by calling names, attempting to organize

group activity or criticizing his peers. His group members ignored or negated his claims,

159

thus positioning him as a member without authority. Steven limited his participation in

the conversation, positioning himself as a member without authority. His uptake to the

direction of other group members also validated their authority and established a social

hierarchy where he was dominated.

This segment gives insights into how peers socially negotiated interactions that

positioned Steven as a struggling reader. Some students like Sam, directly and rudely

interrupted or mocked Steven. Though initially Sam‟s response may have been indicative

of his contestation of the removal of his reading turn, his continued derisive comments,

and perpetual interruption of Steven‟s attempts to read seems to indicate that Sam had

developed a negative social attitude toward Steven. Further, Sam felt the social freedom

to make his negative opinions public, whereas he treated other group members more

respectfully. The group allowed Sam to tease and interrupt Steven without comment.

Stephanie (like Julie in Transcript 2), expressed the expectation that Steven was

incompetent to complete the oral reading task by taking it upon herself to offer

unsolicited reading assistance. Annie, expressed a more subtle displeasure with Steven

through her disapproving comments and impatient tone of voice. Steven himself colluded

with the group by voluntarily relinquishing his reading turn. The result was that the

reading group of peers was a time when certain students increased their own prestige as

readers by performing in ways that were recognized as competent public reading while

Steven was socially marked and his opportunity to read was limited because of social

expectations of his limitations as an oral reader. The analysis of the site of struggle for

social control gave insights into how relationships of dominance were constructed.

160

In addition, this interaction foregrounded the role of collective memories in the

ongoing social interactions that positioned some students as struggling readers. Steven‟s

oral reading performance in this group was negligible. The students were not responding

to his actual reading performance on the day that was captured by the video. This is clear

because he did very little reading that was heard by his group mates that would have

allowed them to assess his reading competence. Instead, the students were interacting

based upon preconceived ideas about 1) what characterizes a “good” reading

performance in reading group and 2) about Steven‟s reading (in)competence experienced

or communicated from previous interactions. The set of collective memories that the

students brought to the interaction influenced the social relations of the group. This

interaction highlighted the way in which the literacy activities intersected with the

negotiation of peer social positioning. Steven‟s technical reading skills had little to do

with the exchange. Rather, students used their reading abilities as props for negotiating

their status among the group members. It appears that the group of students had been

together for sufficient time to develop a shared history related to each others‟ reading

skills. It also appears that the students were highly engaged in a competitive negotiation

of their social status among each other. Students in the middle childhood grades have had

sufficient time in school to build both a set of memories of school and literacy

expectations related to procedural displays and a set of memories related to the perceived

abilities of their peers that may intersect in ways that establish social relations. The social

interactions then created or extended hierarchies which marked some students as inferior

in relation to their peers.

161

Student-led reading groups and teacher-led reading groups showed some

remarkable similarities. The students had taken up on certain features of the practices of

teacher-led groups and carried them over to the peer-led groups. Students organized to

use round-robin style and took up on the social obligation to have everyone in the group

have an opportunity and obligation to publicly read in turns. They also took up on the

practice of publicly correcting one another‟s miscues. These practices defined the reading

group as a place where text was read in pieces, and everyone had to read at the pace of

the person publicly reading. From the interactions of the groups, it was clear that students

understood the expectation to read along in their individual book as the designated reader

read aloud from his or her book. The teacher-led practices led into and helped define the

peer-led groups, but the students also used the opportunities to run their own groups in

different ways than when the groups were led by a teacher.

When the students were running their own groups, the focus of the interactions

generally shifted from a focus on reading and interpreting text to one of social

negotiation. It was clear that Sam used the reading group as an opportunity to vie for

social power by making a bid to be the leader of the group, as well as an opportunity to

flirt with Stephanie and seek to gain her attention. Ethan used the opportunity to enjoy a

period of playful banter with his friends about explosive devices. The students also

collaboratively positioned one another hierarchically by negotiating the social relations of

the group. Annie seemed to be the only one that had a focus of reading the text and

answering the questions. At the same time she used the reading task as an opportunity to

point out Steven‟s reading weaknesses and social inferiority by the way that she worked

162

to move the reading turn past him. During many peer groups, the students adapted the

instructional patterns of teacher-led groups to focus on different, more socially oriented

goals that were not authorized by the teacher. Though they met “the letter of the law” in

completing the tasks, the substantial portion of the time in reading groups focused on

peer-to-peer relations, and on reading only secondarily.

The negotiations of social position through competition became the focus of most

of the peer-to-peer reading groups that were examined. The ways that students organized

the social space as highly competitive led to the use of disfluent oral reading

performances and the limiting of public oral reading opportunities to mark some students

as competent and dominant, and others as incompetent and powerless. Reading groups

run by students became times and spaces where students used literacy skills as tools to

negotiate their social relations more than a time when they collaboratively worked to

make meaning from literary texts. In the process, oral reading performances became an

important social tool, and the positioning of some students as struggling readers became a

way that students gained or lost social status. Oral reading became a point of stress for

students who recognized that they could not perform as well as other peers. Their distress

related more strongly to the social consequences among their peers than to the academic

consequences.

Construction of Hierarchical Social Relations

Associated with the concept of oral reading fluency as a social marker is the

concept that students evaluated and labeled one another hierarchically based upon

reading skills and performance of literacy tasks. One of the recurring features throughout

163

the two years of observations which also surfaced repeatedly in the interviews was that

students implicitly understood school to be a place where there were hierarchical slots

that must be filled. They envisioned the relationships between themselves and others

based upon that social ordering. The eight struggling readers had all come to recognize

that they were low on the totem pole when they were being evaluated on literacy, and

consequent academic skills. This understanding of their social position was expressed in

multiple ways. Students were reticent to publicly display their reading skills because they

realized that others would look down on them or that in comparison with other students

their abilities were judged as lacking. Though some researchers like Althusser (1971) and

Butler (1997) have indicated the belief that people have little agency in their own

positioning and are primarily forced into the adoption of social positions by their

circumstances, my observations indicated that students labeled as struggling readers both

enacted the role of the weaker reader, and at the same time were positioned by others as

inferior in relation to their peers. It was frequently not the blatant expression of inferiority

nor the social situation that resulted in students coming to the place where they expected

to do poorly and saw little hope for improvement, but it was a series of repeated, day-in-

day-out interactions in which social acting and reacting led to an expected and accepted

set of social rankings. Other researchers have come to similar conclusions (Leander,

2004; Wortham, 2007; Zacher, 2008).

Analysis of discourse within the everyday classroom interactions showed the

socially charged nature of common encounters. Certain chains of interactions surfaced as

ways that students enacted their student identities, performing in the classroom over time

164

in ways that stabilized their roles or positions among their peers and teachers. By

observing over an extended time it became apparent that student interactions were

premised not only on the particular activity at a particular space and time, but upon a

historical set of interactions that had developed as a collection of shared memories of

previous events that had been experienced, communicated or observed. This became

important, not simply because the series of events represented recurrent practices, but

because they evolved into a collection of public memories that were called up as

historical narratives and which were used to socially position students in categories as

certain types of people.

As an example of one such interaction, a forty-minute segment was selected to

show how hierarchical relations developed between two boys in the classroom. This

segment was chosen because it illustrates how student roles were actively constructed,

negotiated and modified within the course of the event, moving the social relations

between the participants from one that was initially constructed as egalitarian in nature, to

one that ended as hierarchical. As the literary event progressed, even through the time

frame of one class period, memories were made. The boys developed a shared history

through the ways that each one responded to a series of activities that they were assigned

to complete. In response to the shared and public history, the boys changed the social

relations between them from the beginning of the class period to the end. To give

evidence of how social shift was constructed, excerpts have been selected that show the

changes. The entire transcript is available in Appendix B.

165

The partner-reading activity was one of a series about the literature book Sarah

Plain and Tall by Patricia MacLachlan (1985). The students had been reading the book

and filling out a packet of comprehension and vocabulary exercises about the text for

more than two weeks. Though the activities related to the literature book were quite

regular (read the text and answer comprehension questions on worksheets), the

participation structures through which the students completed the exercises changed

regularly, with the teacher sometimes reading the text, the students sometimes reading in

round-robin fashion, the students reading independently, or students reading with a

partner. At some points students completed the exercises in the packet on their own, and

sometimes they were allowed to work together. On the day in question, the teacher told

the students that they were to read Chapter 7 in partner groups which she assigned. They

were allowed to move around the room and locate themselves on chairs or the floor, but

not under desks or tables. Then they were to work together to fill out the associated

activities in their packet. Students were permitted to use the computer to complete the

vocabulary section, which involved identifying types of flowers mentioned in the text,

and then drawing pictures of them.

I will present a series of segments that highlight the changes in the boys‟

relationship through the course of the 40 minute lesson. Of particular importance

to this analysis is the usage of pronouns and politeness forms that shift over the

course of the lesson. Pronouns are noted with an asterisk (*) and words that

indicate politeness forms are underlined.

166

#1

7:35


Boys start sitting side by

side, both looking at their

own book.

118 Tex: Do you* want to read the first

paragraph?

Tex uses a politeness move

by offering Josh the first

turn.

119 Josh: What page‟s it on? Josh‟s reply indicates his

lack of knowledge of

teacher‟s directions (though

they were repeated twice).

120 Tex: Thirty-eight.

121 Do you* want to read first? Tex establishes egalitarian

relationship in offer.

122 Josh: Okay. Josh assents to proposed

relation of taking turns.

Josh reads the entire first

page.

Transcript 7. Partner Reading - Segment 1

From the first interactions, the boys began to negotiate their social relationship in

the course of conducting the literacy exercise prescribed by their teacher. The teacher had

instructed the students to take turns reading the text, and Tex began, in line 118, by

offering Josh the floor to read. The two were not only negotiating their relationship with

one another, but also the procedures for conducting the academic task. In Tex‟s first

utterance he offered to let Josh read the first paragraph. As first speaker, Tex did not take

a controlling stance, but proposed a cooperative relationship by taking the first turn at

talk, but offering Josh the first turn at reading. His proposal conformed to the teacher‟s

instructions in line 6 of, “I don‟t care how you divide it as long as you‟re both reading

about the same amount.” The first utterance also proposed the length of reading for one

167

turn – a paragraph. Tex suggested what the teacher had stated as a possible plan for the

structure of the exercise – reading paragraph by paragraph (line 4).

Rather than a direct answer to the question, Josh replied to Tex‟s overture with a

question. This response put the relationship between the boys in a position where the

roles had to be negotiated. By asking Tex for information that the teacher had repeated

twice, Josh positioned Tex as the knowledgeable student and himself as a student who

had not paid attention to the instructions. In addition, Josh was interpreting the

illocutionary action of Tex‟s statement, which he considered to be an indirect command

to begin reading, rather than a request concerning his opinion about how to proceed with

the task. This became evident when he began reading after line 122 following the

restatement of Tex‟s question.

Tex responded immediately to Josh‟s question, which served as uptake to Josh‟s

proposed role as director of the activity. At the same time, Tex responded to Josh‟s

failure to answer his first question, by restating the question in line 121. In the

restatement, Tex made a change in his proposal however. Instead of designating the “first

paragraph” as he had in line 118, he revised his statement and asked Josh if he wanted to

read first, without reference to the quantity of reading expected. Tex may have

interpreted Josh‟s response as an implicit disapproval of the suggested format, so Tex

revised his offer. In this case Josh replied in the affirmative in line 122, and then

proceeded to read an entire page. It is unclear whether Josh did not clearly hear or

understand Tex‟s first proposal, whether he had understood the teacher to offer an

alternative turn-sharing plan (line 5 – “You can do one person read one page and the next

168

person read the next page.”), or whether he had rejected Tex‟s plan and instituted an

alternative format. Regardless, the initial five-utterance interaction established

preliminary, egalitarian relations between the two boys, as well as the procedure by

which they would carry out the oral reading portion of the assignment.

The use of questions by Tex to initiate the reading task indicated the stance from

which he began the interaction. Tex constructed two of his initial three utterances in

questions that showed deference to his partner and gave Josh options about how he could

respond. In doing so, he took the stance of tenuousness, giving Josh the opportunity to

establish himself as an equal player in the interaction. Josh responded to Tex‟s proposal

in a style that characterized his responses throughout the forty-minutes of the lesson.

Instead of answering Tex‟s question and affirming or modifying his proposal, Josh

replied with another question that seemed to indicate confusion, inarticulateness, or

perhaps a marker to delay responding. Frequently through the lesson, when Tex asked a

question or gave a command, Josh responded with another question or a head nod. The

repeated style of responding (or failure to respond) gave the impression that Josh was

inarticulate. Since inarticulateness is frequently associated with powerlessness

(Johnstone, 2008), Josh began giving social cues that were interpreted as inability.

Another indicative feature of this interchange is the pronouns that were used. In

this case Tex used the term “you” twice in asking the questions, setting up a distinction

between himself and Josh in the interaction. The question related to turn taking and the

use of the pronoun “you” proposed a relationship where the boys were viewed as

individuals who would be working in turns to cooperatively complete the task.

169

This first segment established a starting point for the negotiation of relations that

were renegotiated multiple times in the course of the forty-minute lesson. Five additional

segments of talk and one transition period have been selected that illustrate the progress

of the social relationship and document the changes that occurred. The segments were

chosen because they demonstrated the changes that were observed, however the entire

transcript as well as broader ethnographic data were used to interpret the interactions.

Because semiotics (prosody, body posture, eye gaze and gesture) are significant to the

communication process between the participants, those are noted where they played a

role in the interaction. The series of events are presented in segments in chronological

order and elaborated on, segment by segment.


13:10

#2

175

Josh:

It‟s your* turn.

Josh is laying on the floor

with his feet toward Tex.

End of page 40; Josh stops

reading– moves book away

from his face and lifts his

head off the floor to speak

to Tex.

176 Tex: You* can read the next

paragraph „cause I* read part of

yours*.

177 Josh: What? Josh sits up to hear Tex.

178 Tex: You* can read the paragraph on

this page because I* read part of

yours*.

Repeats line 176.


170

Moving on from segment 1, the boys began reading one page of the book in turns.

At one point, Tex became engrossed in the story and read past his allotted share and

turned the reading over to Josh in the middle of a page. Segment 2 is the interchange that

occurred when Josh had finished reading his half page. In line 175 Josh indicated that his

turn was completed and proposed that Tex begin reading the next page. Tex took an

egalitarian stance in equally sharing turns, by offering to let Josh read an additional

paragraph to make up for the part of Josh‟s page that Tex had inadvertently read. Notice

that the equality of the relation is signaled in the pronouns of “I” and “you” and “yours”

and “mine.” The use of the pronouns indicated that the boys were working in a separate

but cooperative relationship, and that the reading was divided into portions that were

considered the property of the respective student. It is clear that at this point Tex

understood the relation of partners to be one in which they should equally share in the

task, because he recognized that he had breached the protocol for equality, and sought to

correct that mistake. Note also, the pattern of Josh responding to each initiation of Tex

with a question. This repetition of responding to Tex‟s proposals with a question

established the opportunities for Tex to take a directive role. Tex took up on Josh‟s

responses as either inattentiveness that needed to be informed or as a miscommunication

that needed to be repaired. In either case, the repeated practice of responding with a

question began to change the egalitarian dynamic.

171


18:00

#3

225

Tex:

Uhhh::: we*‟re done.

Josh is laying on the floor

with his feet toward Tex

eating candies while Tex

reads.

226 Josh: Is that me*? Lifts head from floor

toward Tex.

227 Tex: We*‟re done.

228 Josh: Sure?

229 We*‟re done.

230 I*‟ll go get my* comprehension. Gets up from floor and

moves toward his desk.


The language of the relationship shifted again by the end of the oral reading

portion of the lesson that is indicated in segment 3. Tex completed the reading of the

chapter and then hesitated, using the place marker “Uhhh” for Josh to respond. Again

Josh was lying down with his feet toward Tex and his head away from him. When Josh

did nothing, Tex indicated the end of the reading by saying, “We‟re done.” Josh

responded in line 226 with a question that indicated that he did not know that the reading

was completed, and believed that it was his turn. In line 227 Tex shows uptake to Josh‟s

question indicating that he understood that Josh did not know that the reading was

complete, but he also responded to the illocutionary meaning of Josh‟s question which

was asking for direction in his next step. Tex repeated his phrase from 225 to emphasize

the previous statement, and to answer the implicit question that Josh had raised about the

next step in the procedure. Josh responded by questioning Tex‟s statement by asking

172

“Sure?” in line 228, then quickly repeating Tex‟s statement of “we‟re done” in line 229.

Though Josh seemed to question Tex‟s statement, he quickly reversed his position after

making eye contact and repeated Tex‟s declaration in an act of agreement with Tex.

In analyzing pronoun usage, Tex had made a shift from the first person singular

“I” to the first person plural “we,” a pattern which he continued throughout the remainder

of the lesson. It appears that he had taken up on Josh‟s contextual cues and had begun to

take responsibility not only for himself, but for Josh as well. Tex had made a shift from

conceptualizing them as two individuals cooperating to conceptualizing them as a group.

Josh generally continued to use the first person “I,” “me” and “my,” continuing the

conceptualization of he and Tex as two individuals working in tandem.

Utterance Notes

18:25-

22:27

#4

TRANSITION TIME

Josh searches unsuccessfully for his reading packet; Tex helps in the search.

Josh searches for his lost pencil, then has to load his mechanical pencil with

lead.


Segment 4 is a shift of activity of approximately four minutes where Josh

searched for his materials to complete the comprehension questions that were the second

portion of the assigned task. During this time, Tex initially collected his own materials

and moved his chair to Josh‟s desk. The remainder of the time, he helped look in the

desk, and subsequently helped Josh put lead in his mechanical pencil. During this time

Josh did not appear rushed in finding his materials, nor did he offer any explanation or

173

apology to Tex. Eventually the teacher gave the directive that Josh should not waste any

more time, and should write his answers on a separate sheet of paper. From this point

forward, Tex took a much more directive role in the relationship. From this point

forward, Tex shifted his role to helping Josh complete the task.


23:14

#5

248

Tex:

We*‟re supposed to pick two of

these kinds of flowers.

Josh eating candies.

249 Josh: For what?

250 Tex: We*:: [re-reading sentence from

packet] “Chapter 7 mentions many

different kinds of flowers. Choose

two from the following list and

draw pictures of them. Please use

color.”

False start, then he rereads

the sentence from the

packet. Repeat of line 246.

251 So we* choose one of, we* choose

two of these and put one in each

box.

Moves pencil back and

forth pointing out boxes.

252 Josh: Umm…those and those. Points to two kinds of

flowers on Tex‟s page.

253 Tex: Do you* want to do

marigolds…cause we* know what

marigolds look like.


Segment 5 reflects the shift in the conversation that occurred immediately after

the boys resumed the literature project. Tex sought to move the action forward by

proposing the next step in the packet. In line 254, Tex paraphrased the directions in the

packet by stating, “We‟re supposed to pick two of these kinds of flowers.” The choice of

the pronoun “we” indicated Tex‟s commitment to completing the task as partners, and the

174

choice of the verb “supposed to pick” indicates that he was calling upon the authority of

the text as a directive on what the boys should do next. By using the textual directions

(and the implied teacher‟s directions) he avoided positioning himself as the authority over

Josh‟s actions and took the stance of a messenger of the teacher‟s directives. In this way,

he used a form of politeness and maintained a stance of cooperation. In line 254, Josh

continued his response pattern of responding to Tex‟s proposals with a question. Tex

began to answer Josh‟s question, but shifted his utterance to reading directly from the

packet, thus changing the authority of the statement from his own words to the implied

words of the teacher, written as the directions in the reading packet. Following the

reading he expanded the directions, putting them into terms of what “we” were supposed

to do, and clarifying that by pointing to the boxes on the paper. Josh‟s uptake on this

explanation of the task was an implicit understanding that Tex expected him to take

action, because he responded by taking the floor with a place holder, “Umm,” then

selected two of the flower options by pointing to the names on Tex‟s paper. Josh had

proposed that he direct a portion of the task by selecting which flowers the team would

research. However, by this point in the lesson, Tex had shifted his egalitarian

understanding of the boys as equal partners that he had asserted earlier in the lesson. In

this case, he renegotiated the relation that Josh had proposed, by rejecting Josh‟s

proposed flowers and making an alternate suggestion. In doing so, he asserted his

position as the director of the activity. Even though he had shifted his stance to one of

director, Tex continued to use questions and persuasion as his language of direction.

Though he did not let Josh actually make decisions, he used a stance of politeness in

175

using a question to propose action for the pair. When Josh did not immediately respond to

the proposal, Tex added a reason for his rejection of Josh‟s idea and his alternative

proposal: “cause we know what marigolds look like.” At this point Tex had taken

leadership, but still was using polite and non-directive language to dictate the action.

The next fifteen minutes of the lesson were spent doing research and drawing two

types of flowers. The boys moved to a computer and became engaged in conversations

with other pairs while finding pictures and drawing a marigold and a columbine. During

this exchange, Tex directed the boys‟ movements, and took the leadership role in the task

by sitting at the computer and controlling the mouse, while Josh stood or knelt by his

side. By the time the boys left the computer and moved back to Tex‟s desk to complete

the remaining three questions, there was limited time remaining in the class period.

Segment 6 shows how the relationship had shifted again, with Tex controlling both boys‟

actions and dictating answers to the comprehension questions that he expected Josh to

write down verbatim.


40:07

#6

423

Josh:

We* only have five minutes.

424 Tex: We* have enough time.

425

neighbors.

426

This is um:::

427 Let‟s* say we* have met them in

the first chapter.

Continued


176


428

Let‟s* put on page:: Ten second delay.

429 I*‟ll find the page. Searching in book for 21

sec.

430 Josh:

Isn‟t that the first chapter?

431 Tex:

Huh?

432 Josh:

first chapter.

433 Tex: I* know, but I*‟ll just put the

page.

434

Umm:: It should be::

435

On page 8.

Josh began the event depicted in Segment 6 by commenting on the time

remaining in class. He used the pronoun “we” to gain solidarity with Tex and to suggest a

cooperative change in protocol. The illocutionary force of his statement indicated that he

wished to change the pace of the writing that was being directed by Tex. Josh‟s meaning

was not lost on Tex, who responded by rejecting Josh‟s proposal to shift the ongoing

proceedings, stating “We have enough time” in line 424 and then continuing to use the

protocol of reading questions from the packet out loud to Josh, and dictating the answers.

His use of “Let‟s” in lines 426 and 427 showed that he was still using first person

pronouns as terms of inclusiveness in directing the activity. At the same time, he showed

in line 428 that he was individually doing the work that was required when he shifted his

pronoun use to “I” in looking for the page number. In lines 429-433, Josh again injected a

proposal to move forward the pace of the activity by writing only “chapter 1” as a

177

response to the question rather than the more detailed page number that Tex had

proposed, and that required an extended search in the book. In line 432, Tex asserted his

authority in controlling the interaction by acknowledging Josh‟s proposal with “I know,”

but rejecting the proposal and continuing on with his plan by stating, “but I‟ll just put the

page.” In this utterance, Tex shifted from the inclusive first person pronouns to first

person, to make a distinction between himself and Josh, and to assert his individual action

in proceeding with what he perceived to be the correct course of action in contrast to

Josh‟s proposed course. This became even more elaborated when he found the page

number and used the modal “should” in line 433, dictating to Josh what answer he was

supposed to write. Though he was clearly directing Josh‟s actions, Tex still used

language that offered Josh an option to choose his own course.


42:42

#7

442

Tex:

because:: she:: missed:: Maine.

Tex is dictating the answer

to Josh. Tex looks at Josh‟s

answer and points.

443 Don‟t forget to capitalize Maine.

[implied you*]

444 Change the xxx by the way.

[implied you*]

Josh gives a quick snap

and point with fingers,

grimaces and then erases.

Tex turns the packet page.


Finally, by the end of the lesson, the social relations shifted yet again, to one of

explicit direction by Tex. Segment 7 is the transcript from the last set of utterances that

completed the pair reading exercise. Tex had begun reading the questions, then dictating

178

answers. Even at this point in the lesson, after reading the question, Tex paused and

looked at Josh to see if he would respond. Josh either shrugged his shoulders, gave Tex a

puzzled look with his face, or remained silent and stared at his paper. Tex‟s uptake to this

response was to assume Josh‟s inability to complete the task, and to rescue him by giving

him answers. In line 442, Tex was dictating the answer to the final question. After he had

finished writing his own answer, he leaned over and checked Josh‟s written response. He

then directed Josh to make two corrections.

By this time in the lesson, any effort at using polite questions, or of giving Josh

options had been abandoned. Tex had shifted to direct commands, positioning himself as

an authority over Josh. In addition, Tex had changed his use of inclusive first-person

pronouns to the imperative “you”. Over the course of forty minutes, the relationship

between the boys had dramatically changed from one that was communicated as

egalitarian and cooperative, to one that ended as one-sided and dominated. Throughout

the event Tex maintained a position in which he invited Josh‟s interaction, but he

progressively shifted his level of direction and authority as he responded to Josh‟s

enactment of powerlessness and helplessness. From his initial position of seeking an

equitable sharing of work between the two partners, Tex shifted to a position of taking on

full responsibility for the completion of the task. Toward the end of the lesson Tex made

a distinct movement from directive to dominant. Tex began by expecting Josh to do half

of the work, then moved to directing Josh to do some of the work on his own. By the end

of the lesson, however, Tex had taken complete control of the activity, minimizing any

input by Josh, and controlling the interactions.

179

As part of this process, the pair developed a set of shared memories that were

acted upon in the process of constructing their social relations. Early in the encounter,

Josh relinquished his opportunity to share in the organization of the event and presented

Tex with the opportunity to direct the activity when he allowed Tex to organize the

procedures of the exchange. Later, Josh‟s demonstration of disorganization when he was

unable to find his materials created a history. In the interview with Josh and Tex during

participant feedback, Tex commented on the long wait for Josh to organize his materials.

He stated, “He‟s forgetful.” Josh stated, “I felt stupid. I kinda got frustrated with myself

„cause I couldn‟t find it” (Interview, 5/27/08). The pair had made social evaluations of

themselves and one another based on the event that served to shift the balance of

interaction and leadership through the remainder of the class period. Thus, not only the

moment-by-moment negotiation of social relations, but the shared memories that were

built over time (even a relatively short period of time) worked to create a history that

built narratives of student identities and which were consequently used as historical

information that impacted future interactions.

This analysis of a forty-minute partner reading exercise demonstrated how one

fourth-grade boy discursively enacted a subordinate role and how his partner in a reading

exercise took up that enactment, shifting the relationship between the two students from

one of equity to one of hierarchy. The positioning of the two was interactionally

negotiated on a moment-by-moment basis, and discourse analysis shows how both boys

took up on the language of the interaction in ways that reinforced and supported Josh‟s

discursive identity as a struggling reader. In the course of the forty-minute class, Tex‟s

180

discourse changed from that of a collaborative partner to one of rescuing partner, as he

took responsibility not only for getting through the assigned material himself, but also for

getting Josh to complete the task. During video feedback, the boys were asked, “[In

partner reading], are you responsible for your partner?” Josh responded, “No,” while Tex

responded by saying, “Yes. I worry about both of us, cause if you do bad, they‟re gonna

do bad” (Interview, 5/27/08). Tex‟s commitment to his partner‟s completion of the

assignment and Josh‟s complacence about the work placed Tex in a position where he felt

morally responsible for Josh‟s actions. Tex took on a dominant and directive role that

reinforced Josh‟s dependent role. It also saved face for Tex and his partner by allowing for

the completion of the expected reading assignment within the expected time frame. All of

this is consistent with interactional decisions that Josh made as he sent messages about

himself that positioned him as inarticulate and dependent. Tex accepted and acted upon

the cues that Josh gave him.

Managing Institutional Literacy Practices

A third factor that was observed in studying the development of a struggling

reader habitus was that students identified as struggling readers in middle childhood

classrooms were repeatedly (though not always) unsuccessful in navigating the

instructional organization of literacy events within the classroom. During many of the

peer-to-peer literacy events that were analyzed, the struggling readers were very busy.

Frequently, however, the student‟s energies were interpreted by others in the field as

unproductive or counterproductive in generating the socially expected products in the

socially expected ways.

181

The following interaction represents a telling case (Mitchell, 1984) in which three

students who were identified as struggling readers participated in a small group with one

student who was identified as a gifted reader. In analyzing the interactions, it became

clear that all four of the students were active during the event. However, only the “gifted”

reader ended up being recognized by the teacher as a person who demonstrated socially

accepted classroom practices. Through the interaction, the other students were busy with

participation in the game, interacting with content knowledge and negotiating their social

position. However, they directed their energies in ways that did not gain them respect as

academically able students. The struggling readers were not lazy or unmotivated as their

behavior has been interpreted by teachers (Hall, 2007a, 2007b), but they were highly

engaged ways that did not align with the organization of literacy and literacy events that

was valued in their classroom. In consequence, the literate abilities and content

knowledge of the struggling readers was misinterpreted and undervalued.

This segment involved a group of four students, two boys, Josh and Nico, and

two girls, Michelle and Tess. The class was concluding a Science unit and the teacher

had developed a group game to review for the test that they would be taking the next day.

The teacher assigned groups. The focal group, who named themselves the “Raptors,” was

a heterogeneous ability grouping of Tess, who had been labeled as “gifted”, along with

Michelle, Nico and Josh, who had all been labeled by the teacher as “struggling readers.”

For the Science Quiz Game, each group had been assigned a location at a set of

desks around the classroom, and had been given a small whiteboard and whiteboard

marker. The activity, as defined by the teacher, was for the groups to collaboratively

182

answer potential test questions using a cooperative learning structure called “numbered

heads together.” The teacher read a question out loud (which were actual test questions

from the upcoming test document), and students were to silently think about the question

during an enforced “think time.” Following think time, the teacher gave a command for

all the students to discuss the question and come up with a collaborative answer which

they were to write on their whiteboards. They were to do this secretly so that other groups

would not hear their answer. At the end of the writing time, the teacher called out the

number of one of the students, who had been numbered off from one to four. The

designated student would represent his or her group by showing the whiteboard, and

potentially answering questions about the group‟s written answer. If the teacher

acknowledged that the group had a correct answer, they were to make a tally mark under

the name of their group on the large whiteboard in the front of the classroom.

Even though the game was held during Science class and was designed to test

(and teach) Science content, this activity served as a space where students negotiated

their reader identities since text and talk were highly salient features of the activity.

Students were allowed to use class notes, textbooks and other students as resources in

recalling and producing factual material about plants.

A micro-analysis of the discourse that occurred during this small group revealed

three sets of interactions that were occurring simultaneously: 1) the private and

authorized interactions that happened while the students were negotiating Science

answers within the group; 2) the unauthorized interactions between the students both

inside and outside the group that established their social relations; and 3) the public

183

performance for the whole class and teacher that occurred when students gave their

answers, which established social relations with their wider group of classmates. An

important feature of this analysis is an evaluation of the roles that were made available to

students through the participant structure of the Science game. The expected social

practices that were established by the design of the game made the social rules of the

field explicit. According to the teacher‟s explanation of the game, students were to assist

one another to both obtain and demonstrate content knowledge about plants. Their

collaborative performances that demonstrated that knowledge would gain them the

rewards of public recognition of their knowledge in the form of points, as well as a

potential additional award if their group could accumulate more points than any other

group in the class.

However, within the group, the activity turned into a site of competition that

contrasted to the cooperative activity that had been explained as the expectation of the

teacher. Students used varying text sources to formulate answers, and argued between

themselves about whose answer was correct. They vied for social leadership and status in

the group by renegotiating the rules for participation that had been established by the

teacher, as well as the opportunity to publicly demonstrate their knowledge in the spaces

of the activity where the small groups were asked to display answers to the entire class.

As part of this process, a great deal of surveillance and critique took place.

Students monitored and criticized each others‟ methods for using texts to find answers as

well as their writing abilities in putting the answers on the whiteboard. They monitored

each other‟s placement of their bodies in relation to the group, the group‟s tools,

184

unauthorized play items and the classroom furniture. They manipulated these artifacts in

ways that socially structured the activity, giving some group members power over others,

and making some members central to the activity and others peripheral.

At the same time, the teacher also monitored and critiqued the actions of the

students during their group interactions as well as their public displays when they showed

their answers. Thus, the surveillance of the relations between students and the

conformance to the expected, though implicit ways of being in the classroom served to

gain or lose students status both with one another and with the teacher.

As an illustrative sample of the interaction of the group, the talk that occurred

around the first question is given below. As the initial interface of these students during

the Science game, the discussion around the first question set the stage for the negotiation

of relations that continued throughout the event.


32 TEACHER: Okay. Michelle and Tess are sitting on

one side of a set of four desks;

Nico and Josh sit across from

them, facing them. Tess has her

class notes open in front of her,

and Josh has a Science book

open on the desk.

Tess, Michelle and Josh are

leaning in toward the desks,

while Nico has his knees against

his desk and is leaning outward.

33 First question, tell me the main

function of the roots.

Question.

Continued

Transcript 14. Science Game - Question One

185


34 On your own first. Restatement of previously

stated game rule.

35 main function of the roots. Repetition of question.

36 Think on your own first= Repetition of game rule.

37 don‟t write anything until you‟ve

discussed it, Robbie.

Teacher monitoring of student‟s

compliance with the stated

rules. Public rebuke of Robbie.

38 Numbered heads together. On the teacher‟s command,

Michelle, Tess and Josh move

together with their heads

hovering over the desk.

Michelle has the marker in her

hand and is poised to write.

Nico leans in for a moment then

sits back and remains quiet.

39 Michelle: It‟s to take in water.

40 Tess: No, to anchor the plant. To anchor

the plant//

41 Michelle: //And to take in water

42 Tess: “Anchor plants and take in water

and minerals”//

Pointing to her notes and

reading.

43 Josh: //Yes//

44 Michelle: //to suck up

water//

45 Tess: //Uh-uh [negative] to anchor

plants//

46 Josh: //To take in water and minerals.

47 Michelle: water Speaking as she writes the

answer.

48 Josh: Take in water and minerals, Tess.

Continued

186


49 Michelle: How d‟ya spell minerals?...Anchor

50 Tess: Here let me have it, hurry up. Tess takes the marker and starts

writing.

51 Nico: Get off my desk!! Facing away from group,

talking to another group. Lines

50 and 51 overlapping.

52 Josh: Oh yeah, we got it.

53 Nico: //Tell him to get off my desk! Loud, insistent voice interacting

with the group behind him and

facing away from partners.

54 Can you please get off my desk?

55 Tess: // Don‟t mess with it.

56 Josh: Hey look. Please. Josh makes a bid for the marker

and whiteboard. Tess defends

her possession of the marker

and Michelle sides with Tess.

57 Michelle: No:: don‟t do that.

58 That will mess her up.

59 That will mess her up. Repetition of line 58.

60 Tess: Don‟t. Wait.

61 No, no, no, no. I‟ve got it. Tess takes the marker and walks

away from the group.

62 Michelle: It doesn‟t say xxxx. Michelle and Josh continue the

discussion in Tess‟s absence.

63 Just kidding. Michelle begins to contradict

what Tess wrote, then changes

her position.

64 Josh: Anchors the plant and takes in

water and minerals.

65 Michelle: No:: it takes in //water and

minerals and anchors the plants,

anchors the plants.

Continued

187


66 Nico: //Please don‟t push my desk. Speaking to members of other

group.

67 Or my clothing. Tess returns with marker.

68 Josh: Plant Noting a word Tess had

misspelled.

69 Michelle: Here let me have it. Bid to control the whiteboard

and make the correction.

70 Let me have it, Tess. Repetition of 69 with tag.

71 Tess: I get to write it. Refusal to give up the marker.

72 Let me do it again.

Layers of discourse from this short interaction must be unpacked to see how social

relations were being negotiated in this interaction. Based on the teacher‟s discourse from

the complete transcript (Appendix B), the participant structure of the game was designed

to require all members of the group to be involved in negotiating an agreed upon answer,

and for all members to know the negotiated answer so that they could represent the group

in front of the entire class in case their number was called (lines 12-13; 20; 77). The

teacher anticipated that the cooperative interactions would enable all students to acquire

the content knowledge that would translate into a good grade on the upcoming Science

test and repeatedly referred to the expected student outcome throughout the activity (lines

218; 255-256). In addition, she expected that all students would individually use their

textbooks and notes as resources to find answers the questions before sharing the answers

collaboratively with the group (lines 112, 259, 383-385).

188

Conceptions of time and the structuring of time was an omnipresent issue that

permeated this event and worked in the social construction and evaluation of students‟

knowledge based upon the available social positions created by the rules of the game. The

teacher had structured the activity as one with multiple time boundaries. At some points

students were expected to be silent and to look through their own textual resources to find

answers. At other points they were expected to talk to one another and negotiate a unified

and agreed upon answer. A third kind of segmented time was designated for one group

member to present their group‟s written answer. During this time other students were to be

silent since the teacher expected to be able to question students about their group‟s answer

and to control the flow of talk. During this third phase, students were expected to listen to

each other‟s answers and to the teacher‟s elaborations. The students and small groups

renegotiated and contested the teacher‟s time boundaries at multiple points. The students

did not comply with the teacher‟s control of the time boundaries, and she implicitly or

explicitly rebuked the students for talking at the wrong time or restated her expectations

about silence in lines 28-29, 105-107, 113, 149, 155, 159, 189, 203-207, 218-219, 238,

250, 287-290, 315, 355, 360, 390-391.

In addition to the way that time was conceived in relation to the structure of the

field of the classroom, the students invoked issues of time related to turn taking as well as

comments to one another about the speed of their actions. One of the key ways that the

students negotiated control over the group action was by negotiating turns and length of

turns. The teacher established the standard of all group members participating, but the

students negotiated this expectation related to who had more or less turns, and whose turns

189

were shorter or longer. In Transcript 14, students negotiated time related to turns in lines

50, 55, 57-61 and 69-72. In this case Michelle and Tess debated who would get to do the

writing. Tess ended up controlling the marker and thereby controlling the action of the

group. Through the full transcript, Tess and Michelle conspired to pass the marker back

and forth between them, and when Michelle did the writing, Tess dictated. The boys never

got a chance to write an answer. By controlling the marker and whiteboard, students

structured the field in ways that maximized opportunities for Tess to show what she knew

and minimized the opportunities of the other group members.

Further, by maintaining the turn to write on the whiteboard, Tess was able to

control the pace of the group. A number of comments by Tess and Michelle addressed the

speed with which other group members were completing assigned activities. Comments

like “hurry” (lines 50, 139-140, 363), “wait” (line 60) or “write fast” (line 116) are

examples of ways that the students used concepts of time to assess each other‟s literacy

abilities and/or used those assessments to assert control over the others in the group.

Detailed analysis of this interchange demonstrates how social relations evolved and how

positioning took place.

The discourse patterns of this brief interaction showed how Tess worked at the

beginning of the group activity, and continued through the interaction to establish herself

as the Science expert of the group, positioning herself as more knowledgeable than

Michelle, Nico or Josh. Though Michelle was the first to give an answer, Tess responded

to her answer with, “No, to anchor the plant.” She publicly declared that Michelle had the

wrong answer with her “No.” Even when Michelle tried to negotiate a collaborative

190

answer that included both Tess‟s and her contribution by saying, “And to take in water,”

Tess rejected this offer for collaborative production of knowledge. Instead Tess appealed

to the authority of the teacher by reading from her notes. The power play in negotiating

authority in the group became visible when the answer she read from the notes was

exactly the combination answer that Michelle had suggested. However, even after

hearing/reading the notes, neither Michelle nor Tess were willing to back down from their

original response. Michelle repeated her earlier response, “to suck up water,” and Tess

responded with, “Uh-uh, to anchor plants.” Again she publicly negated Michelle‟s

response with the use of “Uh-uh” before her repetition of her version of the answer. In

fact, the notes indicated that both Tess and Michelle had correct, though partial answers.

The issue then appears to be less about producing a correct answer, and more about

negotiating a social relationship of whose answer would be considered correct or

incorrect. Josh weighed in to support Michelle‟s answer by repeating Michelle‟s answer as

she was writing it on the board, once as a phrase, but once with the tag, “Tess”. The

perlocutionary force of the tag was a refusal to accept her proposed answer and to ally

with Michelle in opposing her. In the end Michelle ended up writing both answers on the

whiteboard up to the point where she asked Tess for help spelling “minerals.” Instead of

giving her the answer, or encouraging her to find it, Tess took the pen from Michelle,

finished writing the answer, and then controlled the marker for the remainder of the turn

by taking it with her when she returned to her desk for more materials. This action seemed

to be in response to Josh and Michelle‟s bid for control of the group and their assertion

that their answer was better than Tess‟s. In Tess‟s absence from the group, Michelle and

191

Josh came up with an answer that included both Tess‟s and Michelle‟s suggestions and

aligned with the notes. However, an interactional precedent had been set. Tess asserted her

authority as the most knowledgeable of the group by insisting on her answer and negating

Michelle‟s.

As a further marker of group control, Tess took the marker which was the tool by

which the group publicly communicated what was assumed to be a display of their

collaborative knowledge. Michelle and Josh submitted to this arrangement, even though

they initially resisted her claim.

A final way that Tess demonstrated herself as superior in knowledge and authority

to the other group members was to trump others answers by answering questions strictly

according to the class notes, thereby aligning herself with a particular kind of academic

and reading practice that asserts that the only knowledge that counts as knowledge is text-

based knowledge. She had the notes clearly displayed in front of her and regularly flipped

through them and read out loud from them as she did in line 4. She conducted herself in

accordance with the teacher‟s directions and therefore established herself as the expert by

“following the rules” in contrast to the other students who only partially complied with the

teacher‟s instructions. All these things served to position Tess as a superior student and the

others as subordinates.

Though Michelle also demonstrated a strong knowledge of the content and was the

first to volunteer an answer (even though she did not appear to refer to any text), she

adopted the role of Tess‟s subordinate assistant. In Transcript 11 Michelle had argued with

Tess about the answer to the teacher‟s question in lines 1 to 10, but when Josh made a bid

192

to take the marker away from Tess in line 79, Michelle aligned herself with Tess against

Josh and defended Tess‟s right to write in lines 57-59. Even though Tess insisted that her

answer and no one else‟s be written on the whiteboard, she frequently allowed Michelle to

write the answers with her supervision. The alliance between Tess and Michelle became

explicit when they negotiated with Nico and Josh to change the teacher‟s rules regarding

equitable participation of all group members, allowing Tess and Michelle to control the

turns at writing the group answer. The following exchange is the social negotiation in

which Josh and Nico bargained for their turns at writing answers with the marker, and

thereby negotiated for their positions related to group control and authority.


79 Josh: Where‟s the marker? Vying to get marker from

Tess to put up the team‟s

points on the board.

80 Nico: What‟s this for? Pointing to the digital

recorder. Not engaged in

the science game task.

81 Michelle: Put the point up. Command directed at the

two boys to write the

points on the large

whiteboard but not to write

answers on the group‟s

small whiteboard.

82 Tess: No, the marker‟s up there. Rebuffs Josh – Josh tried to

take the group marker from

Tess but she resists.

83 Josh: No, it‟s my turn. Where// Makes a bid for a turn by

demanding the marker and

turn to write answers.

Continued

Transcript 15. Science Game - Negotiating Turns

193


84 Michelle: //Okay, I

know.

Uptake – understands

Josh‟s claim of a turn.

85 And then me, cause you make a

mark right under the //

Negotiating for Josh to

have the marker to give the

team a point, and then to

give the marker to Michelle

for writing the answers on

the whiteboard.

86 Nico: What is this for! Shouting and pointing to

digital recorder. No

response from team

members.

87 Tess: You guys can put the points up// To Josh and Nico. Tess

makes a proposal that she

will answer questions and

the boys can put the points

on the board.

88 Michelle:

//Yeah, even if it‟s another number

then//

Renegotiating the rules of

the game in a way that

limits the boys‟

participation and aligns her

with Tess.

89 Nico: //Hey, what‟s that for? Pointing to digital recorder.

90 Josh: It‟s to// Responding to Nico‟s

repeated question.

91 Tess: //record us. Pretend it‟s not

even there.

Command to Nico.

Interrupts possible

conversation between Nico

and Josh. Takes control as

the director of the group

activity.

92 Michelle: Ooh, that‟s nasty. Pointing to eraser that Nico

has.

93 Nico: Alright. xxxxx Uptake on Michelle‟s

comment. Puts eraser in

desk.

Continued

194


94 Josh: It is too. It‟s a recorder.

95 Nico: Oh:::::

Here, the girls allied to control the marker, thus controlling the answers that the

group would make public to the class. In line 79, Josh made a bid to have a turn writing on

the whiteboard when he asked, “Where‟s the marker?” Michelle and Tess‟s uptake on the

comment shows that they understood the statement to be Josh‟s bid for a turn. Michelle

commanded Josh to put up the point, thereby redirecting his request for the marker to

putting up points and not writing answers on the whiteboard. Tess extended that limitation

by refusing to give Josh the marker to even put up points, but instead directed him to use a

different marker which was at the large whiteboard in the front of the room. Michelle took

up on the previous comments to explicitly change the rules. “Yeah, even if it‟s another

number then” indicated her approval of Tess‟s proposal, and her public acknowledgement

that the arrangement of turns was different from the protocol that had been prescribed by

the teacher. In the new arrangement, the girls would write answers even if it was not their

number (turn) and Josh would put up points and consequently not write answers. A little

later in the game, Nico was also included in the group who could put up points, but not

write answers.

In line 173, Nico made a bid to participate on his own terms, but the group

negotiated in such a way that Nico chose to continue the unengaged and “invisible”

position that characterized his participation as viewed by his teammates. In this case it

195

appeared that he was choosing not to participate as an act of resistance to the way that

Tess and Michelle had structured the group and limited his possibilities of participation.

173 Nico: Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na

Batman:::

Singing quietly in the

background while Tess

writes the answer.

174 Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na

Batman:::

175 Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na

176 Michelle: Let Nico do this one. Move to include Nico.

177 Nico: What? Responds to hearing his

name.

178 Josh: Put up the points. Defines Nico‟s

participation.

179 Nico: Okay. Uptake on Michelle‟s

proposal to include him in

the group action.

180 I wanna write. Bid for fuller

participation.

181 Michelle: Okay, okay. Xxxxx After saying okay to

Nico, she turns to Josh to

negotiate who will put up

points.

182 Nico: Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na

Batman:::

Uptake on Tess‟s

comment. Withdraws

from group and begins

singing again.

183 Michelle: And then he can put the points

while you‟re there//

Talking to Josh,

negotiating for he and

Nico to work together on

putting up points.

184 Nico: //Na, na, na, na, na, na,

na, na Batman:::

185 Tess: So I don‟t have to sit by myself// ???

186 Nico: // Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na

Batman:::

Continued

Transcript 16. Science Game - Nico and Josh

196


187 We’re done! Shouts toward teacher.

Bid to control group

action without group

consensus?

188 Teacher: Okay:: Uptake to Nico‟s

outburst.

189 Remember when I call a number

that person should stand up and

everyone else should be silent//

Repetition of game

rules; implicit rebuke of

those not following

rules.

190 Michelle: //We give them

carbon dioxide.

Whispered.

191 Teacher: Okay, number threes stand up

with your board.

192 Nico: I‟m the three. Teacher nods yes toward

him indicating a correct

answer and that the

group gets a point.

193 Michelle: Oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah. Doing a little dance.

194 Teacher: Okay, I called a number which

means that everybody else should

be silent.

Interpretation of game

rules.

195 People that are holding up the

boards may go give their group a

point if I gave you a point.

For the first time makes

it explicit who should be

putting points on the

board (the person who

holds the board and

represents the group).

Nico pokes Tess.

196 Nico, hands to yourself please. Rebuke to Nico for

something he did off

screen.

197 Josh: Whose turn is it? Negotiating turns.

198 Teacher: Okay, xxxxxx.

199 Tess: It‟s my turn to write. Bid to control group

action.

200 You‟ll write next. Gaze and promise

directed to Josh. Ignores

Nico.

Continued

197


201 Nico: Ahh, I‟ll skip my turn// Uptake on Tess‟s

organization of turns.

Tess makes eye contact

with Nico with a blank

stare, but does not

respond.

Throughout the game to this point, Nico was not engaged in the teacher‟s assigned

activity. Initially he just sat quietly and by his body language of keeping himself

physically separated from the group, expressed his decision not to participate. When

Michelle, Josh and Tess moved their bodies toward each other to discuss possible answers,

Nico did not move. Later, he turned his body away from the group and spent more than

three minutes directing heated remarks and requests to the group that was sitting at his

desk. (51. “Get off my desk. 53. Tell him to get off my desk! 54. Can you please get off

my desk? 66. Please don‟t push my desk. 67. Or my clothing…”) Tess, Michelle and Josh

generally ignored both Nico‟s failure to participate as well as his obvious and public

breach of the procedures that the teacher had outlined. He was treated as invisible.

However, in line 176, Michelle opened an opportunity for Nico to become engaged in the

group‟s activity when she publicly proposed that Nico should be given a turn when she

stated, “Let Nico do this one.” It is unclear exactly what she was proposing, but

immediately upon hearing his name, Nico reoriented his body toward the center of the

group and asked, “What?” Josh then defined the proposal as giving Nico an opportunity to

put points on the large whiteboard in line 178. Nico used an eager and almost excited tone

of voice in saying, “Okay,” presenting a contrast to his lack of participation up to this

198

point in the group activity. However, after a brief pause he stated, “I wanna write,”

indicating his bid for full participation as a group member. Michelle responded with

“Okay, okay,” then proceeded to speak with Josh to negotiate how he might work with

Nico to put up points. Josh had been given the task of points recorder up to that point, so

Michelle was negotiating for Nico to be included in Josh‟s designated job. The suggestion

appears to be an uptake on line 178 where Josh had defined Nico‟s participation as putting

up points. Michelle‟s conversation with Josh assumed that point recording was the kind of

position being offered to Nico. Michelle took the role of making negotiations for Nico,

and at no point was he invited into the conversation. He reoriented his body away from the

group and resumed singing his Batman refrain.

Nico had moved himself to a peripheral spot in relation to the group, and seemed

unengaged until unexpectedly he shouted in a loud voice, “We’re done!” It is unclear what

precipitated his action, but in doing so he positioned himself as the person in control of his

group – the one who was directing the pace of the action, as well as publicly speaking for

them. The teacher responded to his remark by calling for the groups to reveal their

collective answers.

The teacher also called on the “number three” students to represent their group.

Nico was designated as number three and claimed his right to participate by standing up,

grabbing the group‟s whiteboard and facing the teacher. Michelle cued his action by

whispering, “Hold it up.” The teacher nodded “yes” toward him, indicating that the group

had produced the correct answer. She also added an additional clarifying comment about

which group member should put the points on the front board. The teacher had not given

199

instructions for who should record points up to that point. She stated that the person who

had been called on to hold up the whiteboard and represent his or her group should also

put up the points. This statement disrupted the power negotiations that had been going on

among the Raptors and set up a moral dilemma for the girls who had established a set of

positions that was in conflict with the teacher‟s directive. Nico set down the small white

board and rushed to the front whiteboard to put up points. As he was returning to his seat,

there was some kind of interplay off the camera that earned him a public rebuke.

Immediately following the teacher‟s comment to Nico, Josh made a bid for a turn

by asking whose turn was next. The question implied Josh‟s understanding of the

participation structure of the group: that all members were taking turns and that he and

Nico should be given turns. Tess had reclaimed the small whiteboard when Nico went

forward to put up points, and responded to Josh by designating herself as next writer. She

did turn to Josh and promise him that he would have the next turn (though he was never

allowed to do so). Nico was ignored. He was not treated meanly, but the members of the

group simply ignored his presence and sometimes seemed surprised when he spoke.

However, Nico‟s uptake to Tess‟s comment shows that he recognized that he had been

excluded from the turn rotation. Rather than contest Tess‟s organization of the activity,

Nico expressed agency by stating, “Ahh, I‟ll skip my turn,” and reorienting his body away

from the group. By doing so, he did not allow Tess to position him as invisible or a useless

participant, but positioned himself as a student who chose not to participate when the

activity was structured in a way that didn‟t include him.

200

Though Nico had been labeled as a struggling reader by his teacher in part because

he did not participate in classroom activities or complete work, this interchange gives

evidence that he may have had an alternative reason for not engaging in the literacy

activities. In this case, he was resisting being positioned as an outsider to the social group,

and showing resistance to social pressures by his peers that sought to exclude him. Either

way, he ended up as a marginal participant in the classroom activities. However, by

playing by his own rules, he resisted being positioned as a subject and maintained a

position of control over his own person. This may problematize assumptions that some

students who are labeled as struggling readers are lazy or unmotivated.

A final transcript from the end of the game revealed a different layer of the social

positioning that was going on during the small group activity. As the group enacted their

negotiated roles, Tess took the role of knowledgeable authority, Michelle as her assistant,

Josh as an unrecognized knower and Nico as non-participant. Their performances were

enacted within their group of four, but there is evidence that those performances were

noticed and interpreted by the larger class group and in particular by the teacher. From

the conversations that occurred within the group, it became clear that Michelle and Josh

were equally as knowledgeable as Tess, and in fact may have known the material to a

greater degree since they referred to their notes less frequently. However, the following

transcript gives evidence about what the teacher recognized and publicly declared based

on her perceptions of their performances while observing the group from the outside.

201


369 Teacher: Okay, umm, a couple of you got it

wrong,

370 so we need to talk about that one for a

minute.

371 What does the process of

photosynthesis do?

Michelle puts her hand up

and faces teacher.

372 Michelle. Assigns turn.

373 Michelle: I forget. [giggle]

374 Teacher: Your group got it right so you should

have discussed it with your group and

know what it was.

Tess and Josh put up their

hands. Implicit rebuke and

accusation that Michelle did

not follow the game rules.

375 Michelle: I did. Defense to teacher to the

accusation. Looks on

papers.

376 Oh. Implies that she now

remembers.

377 Teacher: Yes. Maintains Michelle‟s turn.

378 Michelle: They make their own food.

379 Teacher: It‟s a process that plants use to make

their own food…

Expansion of Michelle‟s

answer.

380 Okay next question.

381 What happens in germination?

382

Think time. Time boundary. Josh and

Michelle dive over to look

at Tess‟s notes. One second

later, Nico moves toward

the group. While the

teacher talks, Nico and Josh

turn toward her.

Transcript 17.

Science Game - Teacher Rebuke

202


383 Now Raptors, you do realize that

Tess‟s notes are not going home with

anybody but Tess tonight,

Implicit rebuke of group

members and implicit

affirmation of Tess‟s use of

text to answer question.

384 so you may want to be looking at

some of your own resources as well

Recommendation of what

students should be doing.

Implicit rebuke.

385 so that when you study tonight you

have them available to you.

Implicit command to study

notes in the evening for

upcoming test.

Josh moves back to his own

desk and book. Nico backs

off from the group.

Michelle looks briefly at

her own notebook. As soon

as the teacher‟s gaze is

diverted, Josh and Michelle

dive back toward Tess‟s

notes. Nico remains sitting

back from the desk.

The teacher made her perception of the relationships between the group members visible

and public through the interchange with Michelle. Even though Michelle had previously

given a correct answer in the small group, when she was called on in front of the whole

class, she stated that she had forgotten the answer, then giggled and hid behind her hand.

The teacher‟s uptake on Michelle‟s performance showed that she assumed that Michelle

did not know the answer because she had not been an active member of the group who

negotiated the answer: “Your group got it right so you should have discussed it with your

group and know what it was.” The perlocutionary force of the phrase “should have”

implied that Michelle was morally negligent because she had not met the obligations of

the assigned task. She continued later to extend that valuation to Josh and Nico with the

203

implicit comment, “Now Raptors, you do realize that Tess‟s notes are not going home

with anybody but Tess tonight, so you may want to be looking at some of your own

resources as well so that when you study tonight you have them available to you.”

Following on the comment to Michelle, the teacher‟s public rebuke positioned Nico,

Michelle and Josh as morally negligent in their literacy practices. First, she assumed that

the use of notes was an indicator of knowing. Since only Tess‟s notes were prominently

displayed, the teacher assumed that only Tess was learning. Second, she assumed that

studying notes at home at night was the acceptable way of studying for the test and

thereby getting a good Science grade. The teacher assumed that Tess would take her

notes home and study that evening, and implicitly communicated to the other students

that she could not assume that they would do the same. Third, the teacher implied that

Tess had been doing the work of the group, and the others had not been making an equal

effort. Tess got an accolade from the teacher while the other members of the group

received a tacit rebuke. Not only did the teacher hold these ideas, but her public statement

communicated her assessment to the other classmates. The teacher did not know what

was going on in the discourse of the small group, but made her assessment from what she

had observed and therefore discounted the participation of Josh and Michelle. It also

served to reinforce or extend negatively valued attributes in a wider venue and to publicly

recognize Josh, Nico and Michelle as morally deficient students.

The organization of the Science Review Game activity had a set of explicit rules,

but also a set of implicit ones. Knowledge in this case was considered to be information

that was in the textbook or student notes. A student demonstrated appropriate literacy

204

practices when they used written texts as resources to find and support their answers. The

students were also recognized as knowledgeable when they could write the correct

answers quickly onto the whiteboard to represent their group and when they followed the

teacher‟s directions regarding when and when not to talk. In this group, Michelle was

positioned by the teacher as a struggler because she was not able to immediately produce

a correct response to an oral question. Josh was positioned as a struggler because he was

never able to demonstrate his knowledge by writing on the whiteboard and displaying it

to the class. Nico was positioned as struggling because he did not participate in the

prescribed activities of the team, or demonstrate enthusiasm toward the activity. Despite

the fact that the social interactions in the group created the social positions, and the

students adopted or resisted the positions, Tess came to be marked as highly literate,

knowledgeable, organized and a leader. The rest of the group were not able to manage the

instructional organization of the game in ways that allowed them opportunities to gain

status as a strong reader and writer, and in fact were marked as morally deficient when

they were rebuked in various ways.

Enactments of “Struggling”

The final transcript addresses issues of demeanor and self-concept that

characterized the habitus of struggling readers and gave evidence of students who had

taken up or adopted the offered social position of struggling reader. Literacy practices in

the elementary school were highly competitive, resulting in the hierarchical positioning

of students through a number of social processes: construction of public, oral reading as a

social marker of literacy ability; issues of timing and pacing as a display of competence

205

and as a way of controlling social interactions; procedural displays that were interpreted

as independence and competence, or neediness and incompetence; and organization of

literacy instruction that constructed socially differentiated positions for which students

vied, seeking to increase their own social status at the expense of their peers. In this final

segment, an additional practice is foregrounded as a way that students came to be

positioned as struggling readers and to adopt a habitus that made that position relatively

durable. A number of features highlighted in previous transcripts are again visible.

Knowledge is conceived in a narrow sense, with the correct answer being from the text or

the teacher. Students align themselves hierarchically, competing to come up with the

right answer rather than working together on a task that the teacher had structured as

“cooperative learning.” Students position themselves as authoritative by using critique to

assess one another‟s claims to the right to organize social activities or expertise in the

task. However, in this analysis, an additional feature is highlighted related to the

relational features that distinguish a student who has adopted a struggling reader habitus.

Analysis of student interactions indicates that students accumulate a series of

experiences through which they develop particular ways of considering themselves in

relation to their peers. Their perspective on themselves as readers becomes evident in the

social mannerisms used in their interactions. Part of the social positioning to categories of

readers occurs as students take on certain demeanors or dispositions that mark them as

confident or struggling. Bourdieu (1993) discussed how a habitus is developed when a

person acquires the set of dispositions that is expected for the social position that is made

available to them. Bourdieu and Passeron (1990) indicated a person‟s habitus that has

206

become relatively durable may be observed in the everyday personal deportment or

mannerisms of the participants that express their confidence or anxiety based upon their

ability to manipulate the desirable practices of the field. Students who were identified as

struggling readers demonstrated “struggle” in their mannerisms, enacting the perceptions

they had about themselves as readers and performing in ways that confirmed the

perceptions of their position to their peers.

The following segment serves as a telling case (Mitchell, 1984) of a struggling

reader who displayed an array of reading skills and knowledge, but who was unable to

translate those into practices that counted during small group reading work. His group

members did not regard him as particularly knowledgeable and consequently discounted

his contributions based on his history as a reader. The particular focus is on Gary. In this

segment he interacted within the social space of a peer reading group in ways that

showed his knowledge of the topic and his ability to interact with text in complex and

nuanced ways. However, because he had been hierarchically positioned as an inferior

reader by his peers based on past experiences, and because he was not fluent in

confidently expressing his knowledge and skills in ways that were recognized in the

classroom, he was not given credit by either his peers or his teacher for his efforts,

contributions or products.

Students were given the task of getting into small groups, reading a chapter of

their literature book, Stone Fox, and then cooperatively coming up with definitions of a

set of vocabulary words from the reading. The group under observation was made up of

two girls, Kristy and Megan, and two boys, Gary and William. The groups had been

207

structured by the teacher so that they were mixed ability groups with regard to reading.

According to Mrs. Harper, Kristy and William were considered to be strong readers.

Megan was considered to be a “medium” reader and Gary was considered to be a

“struggling” reader (Interview, 5/7/2009).

The students read the required segment from their literature text, then began their

discussion of the word “harvest.” In the text was the sentence: “The Harvest. [chapter

title] The harvest was just weeks away.” The story centered around a boy and his

grandfather who lived and worked on a potato farm as well as raised sled dogs. The

chapter referred multiple times to the harvest, since the family had incurred some

substantial debt, and the profit from the harvest was anticipated to be insufficient to meet

their financial needs. The four students engaged in a sometimes heated, four-minute

discussion about how the word should be defined. Because an important part of the

analysis centers on how the students and teacher utilized the text or personal experience

as warrants for their proposed definitions, two additional columns have been added to the

transcription. The interactants proposed definitions. They then warranted their claims

based upon assumptions either related to their background/home experience or the text

usage of the term, articulating a logical and persuasive link that justified their definition.

The columns indicate when participants used their experience or the text as a warrant for

their claims:

208


Warrants

from exp.

Warrants

from text

1

Megan: What does harvest

mean?

Megan, Gary and

William are ranged

around a desk.

Kristy is collecting

her materials and

not involved.

Speaks

inquisitively.

2 Gary: It‟s you, it means

when you‟re,

you‟re picking

things.

Talking

emphatically to

Megan. X

3 Corn has a night

when you pick it.

X

4 William: That‟s not //

harvest.

Overlapping with

Gary.

5 I don‟t think that‟s

what //harvest

means

6 Gary: //Yes it does. Defensively;

overlapping.

7 Megan: That‟s not

harvesting.

Repeats William‟s

comment from line

2. Aligns with

William.

8 I don‟t know what

harvest is

9 but it‟s definitely

not harvest

10 it‟s definitely not

that.//

Repeat of line 8.

Continued

Transcript 18. Gary Negotiating a Definition

209


11 Gary: //Yes it is Defending his

definition. Said

emphatically,

turning to William.

12 I know what a

harvest is.

Defending

knowledge.

13 I know what a

harvest is.

Repeat of line 11.

14 William: I‟ll tell you the

truth.

William faces Gary

– uses emphatic

tone; waves left

hand up and down

to make his point.

Makes claim of

having the truth,

claim of superior

knowledge to Gary.

15 On our five acres

where we‟re

building a house in

Waterton,

X

16 this is in the

country//

X

17 Gary:

//No, that is not a

harvest.

Kristy joins the

group.

18 William: All the people are

harvesting.

Leans forward –

gestures up and

down with his right

hand emphasizing

his words.

X

19 They don‟t do that. X

20 They use machines,

tractors uh

X

21 Gary: Yeah, only

combines,

combines.

Faces William –

gestures with left

hand.

X

Continued

210


22 Megan: I should know what

harvest is because I

live on a farm.

Uptake on

William‟s claim to

experiential

knowledge (lines 14

& 15). Bid to

establish authority

based on her

experience as a

farm girl.

X

23 INTERRUPTION

Teacher interrupts with

instructions; William continues

talk about Stone Fox as big,

bad wolf from earlier

conversation; brief discussion

about book mark and garbled

talk between Gary and William

about Dum-dum.

(31:10) During the

interim, students

change their tone

with each other to a

friendly exchange.

Megan chats with

Gary about

bookmark. Gary

and William engage

in word play about

Dum-dum in a

friendly tone, which

contrasts with

discussion about the

definition.

24

Kristy: “The harvest was

just weeks away.”

During the

interruption, Kristy

searches for and

finds the quote in

the book and reads

it to herself;

25 xxxxxx To Gary, pointing

at his book. X

26 Gary: No, that‟s not a

harvest…

To Megan.

Emphatic tone

resumed.

27

Megan: I still don‟t know

what harvest

means.

Continued

211


28 Gary: It‟s where like

when the corn is

really brown, the

combine would go

through and scoop

up all the corn.

Facing William.

X

29 Megan: : I don‟t think

that‟s what harvest

//means…

30 Gary: //Yes it is William squats

down and looks for

something in his

desk.

31 It‟s a harvest, yes it

is.

32 It‟s when a

combine goes

through a cornfield.

X

33 William: You don‟t have to

use one machine;

Stands up, waving

hand. Turns to

Kristy. X

34 It‟s everything. Leans in toward

Kristy. Throws

arms open wide on

“everything.”

X

35 You can just use

machines –

X

36 there‟s a whole

bunch of machines

X

37 but look at the

book.

Pointing. X

38 Kristy: Okay. Deliberate tone as if

seeking to direct the

action.

39 Megan: I‟m copying what

she has.

Moves to Kristy‟s

side and looks on

paper.

40 Gary: Alls they do is just

go through the

cornfield…

X

Continued

212


41 William: There‟s a whole

bunch of machines.

X

42 Megan: No it‟s not. To Gary in

response to line 21.

43 That‟s picking. X

44 Kristy: No, you first go in

with a tractor and

then there‟s a

machine that makes

it go up//

To Gary. Faces

Gary. Speaks

quietly. Uses right

hand to gesture

showing how the

machine moves.

X

45 William: //

plow

Interrupts. Angry

voice. X

46 Kristy: //and

then the corn//

Turns to William. X

47 William: //plow // Hits himself on the

forehead with the

palm of his hand in

exasperation.

Kristy, Gary and

Megan‟s eye gazes

go to William.

X

48 Kristy: //stays in

the little basket.//

X

49 William: //C’mon

people, plow.

Speaks

emphatically,

almost shouting.

Tone displays

impatience. Writes,

then kneels by the

desk.

X

50 Megan: Okay, plow. William, Kristy and

Megan write on

paper. Gary moves

away behind the

girls.

51 There! Five-second delay.

52 Gary: What‟d you write

there?

Kristy erasing her

paper. Gary returns

with a paper.

Continued

213


53 Kristy: That‟s not it… X

54 It means, it means

that//

55 Megan:

//Plow.

To Kristy and Gary.

Stops the

negotiations and

forcefully declares

her (William‟s)

answer to be the

answer all should

accept.

56 It means plow.

57 It means plow,

plow, plow, plow,

plow.

Forceful tone.

Repeat of line 54

with repetitions.

58 Kristy: Harvest means a

tractor gets all the

corn and they//

Contests Megan‟s

definition. Speaking

quietly and

explaining to Gary.

X

59 Gary:

//It‟s called the

combine. It‟s a

combine.=

X

60 William: No it isn‟t… Looks up from the

floor at Gary.

61 Gary: Yes it is, //

62 Megan: //It‟s

definitely…

Overlapping with

William.

63 William: It‟s just a machine// Overlapping with

Megan. X

64 Gary:

//Yes, but the one

that goes through

corn is a combine.

X

65 William: This isn‟t corn, this

is potatoes//

Stands up and

speaks in an

exasperated voice

with hands

outstretched.

X

Continued

214


66 Gary: //You don‟t even

know what I‟m

talking about.

67 William: This isn‟t corn, Pointing to the

book. Refers back

to the book [see line

35].

X

68 this is potatoes. X

In the students‟ discussion, there is extensive interaction, and several strategies

used to make meaning. Megan introduced the topic by asking the question in line 1. Gary

proposed a starting point by introducing the idea of picking things and added to that his

comment about picking corn. Immediately, William started a debate, which set the

competitive tone of the remainder of the interaction. Gary was put in a defensive position,

which he maintained throughout the interchange. Notice the verbal sparring that occurs as

students propose a concept, have it contradicted and defend their position.

From the beginning William positioned himself in opposition to Gary, while

Megan allied herself with William or Kristy and followed their lead. Megan consistently

opposed Gary‟s proposed definitions, despite the fact that she had nothing to offer (and

that she herself indicated that she should know something about this since she lived on a

farm). Through the course of the exchange, she shifted her social alignment between

William and Kristy. Kristy listened to all sides of the conversation and waited to form an

opinion. She did not publicly align herself with Gary, but when Megan and William

refused to incorporate any part of Gary‟s definition, she turned quietly to Gary (line 56)

and spoke to him, trying to incorporate parts of his ideas in her definition. The conflict

215

between William and Gary focused on Gary‟s insistence that “harvest” was related to the

use of combines as the machinery that was used distinctively for harvesting corn. William

opposed that idea based upon the fact that the text was speaking of harvesting potatoes.

In the process of negotiation both William and Megan cited their personal

experiences as warrants for the definitions they introduced. William cited his experience

in observing farming practices near his family‟s property, while Megan cited her

experience of living on a farm. However in line 37, William changed his warranting

tactics. He shifted the justification for his definition from personal experience to the way

that the word was used in the text. Here he cited “harvest” as related to potatoes, to

oppose Gary‟s strongly argued position of harvest as a picking or gathering of corn.

Because of the connection with potatoes, William then lobbied for the use of “plow” as

the correct interpretation of the term within the story. Megan took up his position, and

argued for using the term “plow” as a definition. However, Kristy also consulted her text

(lines 24 and 35), showed the passage to Gary, then weighed in to reject William‟s

definition, and opted for a more complex and refined explanation that related to Gary‟s

explanation of gathering corn using machinery. Kristy and William thus were warranting

their definitional claims based on the text. Gary used his own background knowledge as a

warrant for his claim, and did not shift that position even when the other group members

moved from experiential warrants to textual warrants.

In making the shift to a textual warrant, William demonstrated a grasp of the

structuring principles of the classroom – an orientation to the text as the authority for

interpretation of meanings. In addition to that, however, William had developed a style of

216

interaction that portrayed a sense of being a knowledgeable student, which exhibited

itself in his confident, even overbearing mannerisms. He was able to make his case and

persuade others, in part because of his reasoned arguments, but also because of his

adamant and insistent social practices. In line 13, William uses the phrase, “I‟ll tell you

the truth.” In utilizing this prologue to his argument for the definition of harvest, he made

a claim about his position as a knowledgeable authority (and also implied that Gary‟s

understanding was false). Further, he relied on the text as truth for his position in lines 35

and 66-67.

There is evidence for the social influence of this argument because the group

members were generally convinced of his argument and accepted his word as final in

lines 48-50. Megan not only accepted William‟s definition, but echoed his definition in

lines 53-55 and insisted that the other group members align with her and William. Even

though Kristy resisted the simple definition of plow, she stopped arguing and wrote a

definition after William made his definitive and emphatic statement in line 47 (“C’mon

people, plow”).

In contrast, though Gary made an insistent and relatively detailed argument for

“harvest” in relation to taking in corn, his definition was discounted from the beginning

of the interaction. From the point where Gary proposed a definition, William and Megan

expressed their disbelief in lines 3-4 and 6-9, and even though Gary continued to argue

his point, he was never taken seriously. Gary made repeated statements defending his

knowledgeability. When William and Megan negated his definition of harvest, Gary

responded with, “Yes it does” or “Yes it is” in lines 6, 11, 30, 31 and 61. Further, in lines

217

12 and 13, he defended himself as a knowledgeable person by twice stating, “I know

what a harvest is.” However, in contrast to William‟s argument that shifted warrants and

which was conducted in confident and strident tones, Gary kept repeating himself in

intonations that took on a pleading quality. During the debate William portrayed himself

as certain and in-charge, while Gary needed to defend both his proposed definition and

himself as someone whose contributions should be taken seriously. He made an effort to

assert his perspective, but was unable to convince others. Despite the fact that Gary

persisted to the end of the interaction with an alternative definition, the definition that he

wrote in his packet was “plow.”

The students positioned one another as authorities on reading and interpreting text

from the beginning of the exchange. Megan began the exchange by asking the question

that was on the worksheet, but in an inquisitive tone that communicated that she wanted

to know the meaning. Gary was the first responder, but was immediately challenged by

William, before he was able to articulate a complete thought. William‟s move to interrupt

and negate Gary‟s offered definition both demonstrated his assertion that he had the right

to control the conversation, and negatively evaluate Gary‟s definition which positioned

him as knowledgeable in contrast to Gary. Megan immediately joined sides with William

despite her explicit statement that she didn‟t know what harvest meant. The students had

a predisposition to accept the opinions of some students and to discount the opinions of

others. The fact that William overlapped Gary‟s first utterance before he had a chance to

present an initial proposition, and that Megan joined William against Gary in the first

seconds of the exchange indicates that this exchange was one in a series of exchanges,

218

and that students were utilizing collective memories related to social positioning and

expectations of academic ability. Though Gary expressed a desire to be a contributing

and engaged member of the group, his participation was not accepted by his peers. He

shifted his demeanor in ways to try to assert his knowledge. By doing so he took on

mannerisms that marked him as “struggling” in contrast to the confident and assertive

demeanor of the other group members.

An additional interesting feature of this interchange occurred during the teacher‟s

interruption between lines 22 and 23. The teacher interrupted the students to clarify her

previously given instructions. As soon as the teacher began speaking, William and Gary

began a sub-rosa interchange, talking about a Dum-dum candy that William had in his

desk. Though the entire conversation was indecipherable on the tape, the demeanor and

tone of the conversation notably changed from their more “formal” academic dialogue.

Whereas the discussion about the term “harvest” had a tense, competitive tone, the boys

exchanged jokes and created a word play on the term Dum-dum during the interlude. The

competitive relationship changed instantly to a friendly, playful one. When the teacher

stopped talking, the boys‟ conversation turned immediately back to the previous

competitive quality.

This interlude gives insight into the charged and competitive nature that

frequently characterized peer-to-peer interactions in reading groups. Though the teachers

structured the participation in ways that expected cooperation and collaboration, the

students had constructed the unsupervised times as spaces where they negotiated social

position using literacy. The stark contrast of the friendly, casual relation that was

219

expressed between Gary and William in the interlude to the debate that transpired both

before and after the interlude gives evidence for the social positioning that had been

adopted as an integral part of the classroom ritual of “reading group.” Gary, in ways

similar to the other struggling readers, had failed to accumulate a history of successful

negotiations with peers, and so was almost instantaneously discounted by his classmates

in the discussion about the definition of “harvest.” He was unable to harness his

intellectual and social resources in ways that brought him recognition in the group. He

was also unable to manage the intense competition with the aplomb and confidence of

other students. Gary‟s experience aligned with what has already been discussed in the

experiences of Michelle and Steven.

Following the small group exercise, the students were asked to return to their

seats and the teacher took over the discussion related to the assigned vocabulary. A

transcript of the interaction follows:


Warrants

from exp.

Warrants

from text

160 Teacher: As I was walking

around I noticed that

many of you had plenty

of time to get through

definitions.

(37:25)

161 Let‟s open up your

Stone Fox notebook

162 and I want to hear and

have you share some of

the definitions that you

came up with.

Continued

Transcript 19. Gary - The Authorized Definition

220


163 Okay, let‟s talk about the

first one, “harvest.”

164 Okay, let‟s find where it

was used in our book and

let‟s read that together.

X

165 It was on the very first

page of Chapter 2.

X

166 “The Harvest.” Reading from

text. Reads

title of the

chapter.

X

167 “The harvest was just

weeks away.”

X

168 Is harvest a noun or a

verb?

X

169 How is it used in this

sentence?

X

170 Sam.

171 Sam: A noun. Raised hand to

be called on.

172 Teacher: Okay, it‟s a noun. X

173 It‟s something. X

174 “The” is the key word

there.

X

175 “It tells you it‟s “the”

harvest.

X

176 It tells you it‟s something

that happens,

X

177 and what do you do at a

harvest?

178 What will we find a

farmer doing at harvest

time?

179 Korey?

180 Korey: Digging. Raised hand to

be called on.

Continued

221


181 Teacher: Okay. So is, is harvest

actually digging?

182 Sx: Uh uh. [negative]

183 Teacher: Or is it a time that you

would dig up the crops?

184 Which one do you think?

185 It was a noun. X

186 Are you going to be

digging when you harvest

X

187 or is that a time when you

dig?

X

188 Alan.

189 Alan: Um (3 sec) a time when

you dig?

190 Teacher: Okay, we already

discussed that “harvest” in

this sentence is used as a

noun.

X

191 So, when you were

describing what harvest is,

X

192 should we say that harvest

is a time for digging up

the crops

X

193 or is it digging up the

crops?

X

194 Is harvest something that

you‟re doing?

X

195 Sx: Yes.

196 Teacher: It‟s a time when they dig

up the crops.

Writes on

board: “A

time to dig”

X

197 Okay.

198 You guys were really

close,

Continued

222


199 you did a nice job,

200 but it‟s a time or a season. X

201 and I guess depending on

how you use it,

202 it could be used as a verb,

203 but in our book, X

204 they did not use it as a

verb, Megan.

Reprimand to

Megan.

X

205 They used it as a noun. X

In constructing a definition, the teacher used the textual usage of the word as a

warrant. She framed the discussion by analyzing the part of speech of the word in

question and then prefaced the talk about the word‟s meaning with the phrases, “It tells

you it‟s something that happens, and what do you do at a harvest? What will we find a

farmer doing at harvest time?” Her method of asking questions communicated the desire

to have students be the producer of the correct answer. However, as the conversation

moved forward, it became clear that the teacher was not progressing toward the desired

definition. The interaction became mired in confusion about “digging” and the teacher‟s

own comments seemed to muddle the discussion about a noun (thing) and a verb (action).

In the end, the teacher defined the term, incorporating the term “dig” but emphasizing the

time or season, an aspect that was never mentioned by a student. Throughout the

discussion, she made it clear that in the classroom, definitions of words were warranted

based upon textual usage and not simply background knowledge.

223

This interaction served to intersect with the social interactions of the focus

reading group in two ways. First, the teacher reinforced William‟s position by supporting

his practice of using the text as a warrant for his definition. The teacher affirmed the

students‟ efforts in attempting to define the word on their own and acknowledged

multiple meanings for the term, but in the end, the “correct” definition was the one that

was “in the book” (lines 169, 190, 203-205).

Secondly, the correct and authorized definition was not only the usage of the text,

but it was also the one that came from the teacher based on the method of warranting that

was authorized in the classroom. The definition that was accepted for credit in the packet

was the one that the teacher explained orally and wrote on the board. Students who were

deemed to have successfully completed the exercise and who got points for their answers

were the ones that, in the end, wrote what the teacher wanted them to. The group

members wrote the following answers in their answer packet:

Megan: (“plow” was erased) “time to dig”;

Gary: “plow”

Kristy: “Time that you dig it up the crops”

William: “season”

Despite the complex, deeply debated discussion that the students had engaged in

prior to the teacher‟s instruction, in the end all the students except Gary opted for a

simple variation of the teacher‟s answer, even if that meant erasing what had been written

in the group. To the end of the group discussion, Gary had continued to argue for his

definition of “harvest,” but he wrote the answer that the group had tacitly accepted –

224

William‟s adamantly argued definition, “plow.” He did not change his answer after the

teacher had given her definition. William had simply bided his time, and had not written

anything until the teacher gave the desired definition in the whole class discussion.

Though the discussion was nuanced and developed a range of meanings for the word

“harvest,” three of the four students recognized that the teacher‟s interpretation trumped

any student discussion, and the expected written answer was what the teacher said/wrote.

Thus, Kristy and Megan changed answers to align with the teacher‟s expected response,

while William simply waited for the teacher to give the answer. Gary did not change his

answer to what the teacher expected, even though he had resisted the group‟s proposed

definition. Thus, he was the only one of the group who was not given credit for a correct

definition. The evaluation misrepresented Gary‟s vocabulary knowledge, as well as

undervalued his contributions to the process.

When he received his paper back with a poor grade, he drew a stick figure on the

back of his paper with arrows pointing toward it. On the arrows he wrote “idiot,”

“dummy,” and “stupid.” His emotional reaction to the outcome of the work in the small

group adds an additional layer to the enactment of a struggling reader. Though he worked

hard in the group, his efforts were not recognized and he was penalized for conforming to

the dominant definition that the group produced by receiving a poor grade. The

representation of his feelings toward himself gave evidence of the negative self-esteem

that Gary had developed related to his literacy practices based on his inability to gain

peer respect and affirmation. It also (at least partially) explains the defensive demeanor

with which he approached the interactions in the reading group as he sought to

225

emotionally deal with a long chain of literacy events where he had evaluated himself as

lacking.

This represented one example of how a student labeled as a struggling reader

brought resources to the academic endeavor that were discounted by his peers and

teacher. Gary had experience and knowledge about farming that far exceeded the basal

reader definition of harvest that was required. He was articulate in arguing for his

position. However, he and his group members brought a history to this particular

encounter. Coming into the reading group, Gary‟s peers had experience of his reading

ability and consequently expected that his contributions would be inadequate. Gary‟s

mannerisms betrayed his lack of social confidence, and he was unable to martial his

resources to use rhetorical forms to give evidence for his assertions, or to convince his

peers of his knowledgeability. Further, he did not recognize the power relations with

regard to the authority of the text and the teacher, and consequently did not get credit for

his efforts. He emotionally responded to the poor grade in a way that reflected his

perspective on himself as a reader. He had taken up a habitus that showed how he had

adopted social habits expected of a struggling reader. At the same time in a recursive

fashion, the repeated, public performances of the demeanors and self-evaluations that

were accepted as part of the habitus developed into a set of collective memories that

reflected his adopted position to others so that the position became accepted as natural.

Summary

Discourse analysis of peer-to-peer interactions around literacy during regular

occurring classroom events gives evidence for certain practices that constructed the social

226

position and socially marked students as struggling readers. The entire process of using

written text in the classroom was based upon a set of assumptions about the definition of

reading and how literacy was assessed. Instructional procedures, tied to institutional and

legal policies established a hierarchical system in which students competed with their

peers for rankings.

Peers relied heavily on performances of oral reading to judge each other‟s reading

abilities and to rank students in comparison to themselves. They embodied the perceived

hierarchies in a range of ways: by correcting the reading errors of those who were

“lower” readers; expressing impatience or frustration when students were given a turn to

read; giving unasked for assistance; manipulating the situation to minimize or exclude

certain students from reading aloud; mocking students who they perceived to be poor

readers.

Peer interchanges tended to take on a highly competitive tone, and students

negotiated to show themselves as superior to the other students. This competitive

interaction seemed directly related to academic activities, in contrast to congenial social

relations between students that occurred when they were not academically engaged.

Competitive practices took the form of directing the interaction, vying for authority,

manipulating the activity to get more turns, and managing resources in ways that

highlighted personal knowledge or skills at the expense of other classmates. Students

who were weak or slow at reading and writing had a difficult time keeping up with the

pace of the exchanges, and consequently were socially minimized.

227

Conceptions of time were used to evaluate students who could not keep pace with

their classmates in completing the literacy assignments. The highly structured time

boundaries that were a key feature of literacy activities resulted in the misassessment of

some student‟s knowledge or skills. Students developed a set of collective memories

about individual‟s literate abilities and used those as resources to collaborate in ways that

minimized the participation of some students or excluded others.

The struggling readers also displayed personal mannerisms that displayed a sense

of anxiety and discomfort. The students were positioned as weaker than their classmates

in reading and began to enact or resist the role of an inferior reader. Many became

reluctant or resistant to participate because of their perceived reading weakness, and that

disinclination was interpreted as incompetence, inarticulateness or unwillingness. Over

time peers came to expect the struggling readers to act in certain ways, and responded by

treating them differently from other classmates.

With the extended time frames in which students attended school and daily,

repeated episodes of peer interaction around reading and writing, students developed a

habitus that became naturalized as being “how they were.” The social field and

instructional practices created limited social positions, allotting some students to the

position of struggling readers. The practices of the struggling readers themselves

compounded through the relative lack of academic skills, lack of social support and lack

of self-confidence to position the students as a kind of person who was incapable of

succeeding in reading. This belief was accepted both by the students themselves and by

their peers, teachers and families.

228

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION

By utilizing observations of the school and community context and a close

analysis of peer-to-peer interactions that occurred around literacy events, I have

generated a set of theoretical constructs that address the research questions: 1) How do

some middle childhood students come to be socially marked as struggling readers? 2)

How are peer-to-peer interactions around literacy events implicated in such positioning?

3) How do students use literacy practices in ways that socially differentiate some students

as struggling readers or hierarchically position one another based on literacy skills?

To summarize the findings of chapters 4 and 5, I observed that the classroom was

structured in ways that made it highly competitive. Students were continually ranked on

the basis of various performances in relation to other students – in the local school, as

well as in the state and nation. One of the earliest markers of school achievement

recognized by teachers and other students was the ability to read aloud. Since oral

reading is a public performance, students were assessed on their ability to read with

word-by-word decoding accuracy, adequate reading pace and speaking intonation.

Secondarily, they were evaluated on factual recall of the textual content.

In peer-to-peer interactions, students were highly competitive in oral reading, and

they developed ways of thinking about each other as superior or inferior based upon their

reading skills. In the transcripts of the three reading groups that I examined, students used

social maneuvers such as interrupting, correcting or assisting a peer in decoding,

229

mocking, or directing a change of reader to gain turns to read and maintain extended

times of reading. They negotiated with one another to exclude or minimize the oral

reading of certain students. They used verbalizations, facial expressions and gestures to

express positive or negative reactions toward a peer‟s oral reading. In addition they used

linguistic resources such as pronomialization, reduction of use of modals and changes in

stance and politeness forms to position one another.

Struggling readers responded to their frustration with reading, but also to the

social pressure that was associated with reading in school: they disliked reading, they

avoided reading aloud, they joked about their mistakes, they sought help in authorized or

unauthorized ways, they resisted participation in events where they were excluded or they

became shy in situations where reading aloud was required.

Development of a habitus as a struggling reader appeared to build over time

because students experienced a history of failure with reading and became sensitive to the

social markers linked to poor reading performances. Other students in their class

developed low expectations and responded to students, not based upon current reading

ability, but based upon earlier reading difficulties. There was a shared history that

developed over time for both the student as well as the other participants within their

social field that resulted in students taking up a habitus that was interpreted as an inferior

social position related to their classmates.

Thus, the use of the label “struggling reader” at Mapleton Elementary School was

based upon a combination of academic and social practices working together that were

often recognized as strictly problems that happened with an individual student. Teachers

230

were cognizant of academic reading skills that characterized a struggling reader, but

failed to acknowledge the social features that were equally salient. Teachers frequently

acknowledged that a student‟s family background was implicated in academic success or

failure, but there was little recognition of the ways that a student‟s language and customs

intersected with the social norms of the classroom to socialize students as a certain kind

of person. A narrow slice of knowledge and experience counted in the classroom, and a

limited set of actions allowed a person to gain respect and recognition.

From these observations, I have drawn a series of theoretical constructs related to

the process of socially constituting middle childhood students as struggling readers. First,

the organization of reading instruction reflects the institutional ideology and sets the stage

for students to structure and maintain social hierarchies related to reading performance

that, over time, leads students to take on certain identities and roles. As part of that

organization, the learning and teaching of reading involves a set of moral demands and

obligations. Students were positioned as struggling readers, in part, based upon the way

that they were able and willing to meet those moral requirements.

Second, conceptions of time are implicated in several ways related to the

constitution of struggling readers. Social constructions of time related to reading and

reading acquisition both construct the category of struggling reader and socially mark

students as struggling readers. Issues of time relate to the constitution of struggling

readers in the continual time boundaries that mark how fast a student must read, how

quickly reading abilities must develop and how quickly they must perform reading tasks

and tests in order to be judged as a proficient reader. Students and others in their

231

community build a set of collective memories that relate a student‟s early reading

(dis)ability to the type of person they are, which influences ongoing social relations and

literacy activities based on historicized assumptions about the student.

Third, social negotiations of hierarchy are connected to students‟ uptake on the

moral obligations of the classroom. Students‟ responses to and social negotiations of the

sometimes contradictory moral demands that are placed on them related to literacy

activities result in some students being categorized as morally deficient in terms of

competence, independence or effort. The ways that the student and their peers respond to

social interactions that position them as morally deficient serve as an unrecognized social

process resulting in the constitution of a struggling reader habitus.

Organization of Reading Instruction and Social Hierarchies

The ways that school personnel organize reading instruction promote particular

kinds of social interactions and reading practice. They reflect an institutional ideology

about learning and achievement that structures the social positions available to students.

Reading at Mapleton Elementary School was generally conceived as an individual

cognitive skill that happened within the heads of individual students, and the students

were ranked in relation to other students based upon their ability to perform designated

skills that were considered to be “reading.” Both the institutional and classroom

organization of reading instruction promoted public performances of reading that were

under the surveillance by teachers and peers, resulting in continual critique and

assessment. This ongoing public assessment created a social space in which students

constructed hierarchical social structures based on competition, control and privilege.

232

Students‟ abilities, value systems or experiences differentially allowed them to publicly

meet the reading performance demands, and provided opportunities for students to

position one another and develop a habitus with regard to reading.

Institutional Definitions of Reading and Texts

Part of the organization of reading instruction that created social hierarchies was

dictated by conceptions of reading and curricular demands that were placed upon the

teachers because they were part of the public school system. The regulations that

lawmakers had written into federal and state legislation laid out the curricular content for

each grade, put restrictions on which textbooks could be used and established assessment

methodology and standards by which both students, teachers and school districts were

judged on reading skills (along with other content). The policies of the state-wide

assessment system established that students would individually take timed paper and

pencil tests over a limited range of texts, thereby promoting the concept of reading as an

individual endeavor, and the concept of text as limited to paper-based forms of literature.

Though there is substantial evidence from New Literacy Studies (Barton & Hamilton,

1998; Gee, 1999; Heath 1983; Street, 1993) and studies of new literacies and multimodal

literacies (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Gee, 2004; Kress, 2003; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003)

that neither of these conceptions are accurate depictions of how reading is conceptualized

and used in peoples‟ lives, the students at Mapleton Elementary School had taken up the

ideologies and incorporated them in ways that impacted their view of one another and

themselves as readers. As shown in Chapter 5 in the discussion of the Science review

game, students used textual resources in varying ways to meet the curricular expectations

233

and to learn content knowledge. However, the expectations of the institution and teachers

gave privilege to the reading practices of Tess, while undervaluing the reading practices

of Josh and Michelle.

When giving instructions about the activities that were to be conducted during

reading groups and cooperative learning activities, such as in Gary‟s reading group or the

Science Review Game, teachers expressed their expectation that students would work

collaboratively to gain meaning from texts. However, there is evidence that the students

socially structured the tasks as opportunities to utilize the collaborative efforts of the

group to more easily complete individual tasks. Even though students highly contested

the term “harvest” in Transcripts 15 and 16, the product that was the focus for the

students was the individual definition of the term that they would write down and turn in

to the teacher. The fact that the students wrote different answers indicated that they did

not conceive of the activity as a collaborative effort that would require a common

negotiated response, but viewed it as an individual endeavor that was to be informed or

assisted by the contributions of their peers. The rules of the Science Review Game forced

students to share their knowledge and their texts to gain points, but the indicated goal of

the exercise was to prepare students to individually utilize their reading and writing skills

on a future paper and pencil test. The highly competitive nature of the peer-to-peer

literacy events gives evidence that students conceived of reading as an individually held

skill that was used to compete against others and through which they would be

individually ranked and rated. In these cases it became clear that the form of the activity

did not define the substance of the interactions. The classroom participation structures

234

selected by the teachers could not account for or control the social dynamics that were

part of each peer-to-peer exchange.

Students had taken up the ideology that reading related only to a narrow slice of

written texts, and that being observed using those types of texts in particular ways gave

status to some students as readers. In defining each other as good or poor readers,

students commented on the long and complicated books that “good” readers took out of

the library or read on their own. Nico gave evidence for his perceived reading

improvement between fourth and fifth grades based upon the size of the books he read.

He stated, “I improved because when I was in fourth grade I used to read small, small

books. Now in fifth I read chapter books up to 500 pages” (Interview, 5/8/09). Mr.

Johnson commented that certain students would take out books from the library that were

popular and carry them around to gain social status even though he doubted that they read

them. The struggling readers described their reading difficulties in relation to the reading

skills that were required in reading aloud in class or in completing the state achievement

tests. Though many of them expressed that they read other kinds of texts in other

contexts, they had taken on the understanding that only reading that was authorized in

school counted as reading. The students had come to the place where only certain kinds

of texts and certain demonstrations of reading counted in evaluating themselves and one

another as readers. Another feature of the classroom instruction leading to social

hierarchies was the view of what counted as knowledge in relation to reading and texts.

235

Epistemology

Hierarchical positioning of students through reading instruction occurred and was

bolstered by a particular epistemology that viewed knowledge as a limited set of

information that was held by the teachers, textbooks or producers of state examinations.

Students were expected to accept the information given by the teacher and to present it in

particular ways in order for it to be counted as knowledge. Gary demonstrated that he had

a detailed and extensive knowledge of harvesting, which he was able to articulate and

argue for. However, his knowledge did not count in the classroom for two reasons. First,

the knowledge that Gary held about harvesting was not the information that was held by

the textbook developers and the teacher. The knowledge that counted in the classroom

was limited to the information that was held by adults, and which must be repeated by the

students. Second, his knowledge did not count because the information that counted in

the classroom was related to information that was presented in written text. It could be

argued that Gary‟s description of a corn harvest would represent the definition of

“harvest.” However, because the literature book referred to harvest as related to potatoes,

Gary‟s definition was rejected by the reading group, and because it was used in the text

as a noun rather than a verb, it was rejected by the teacher. In this way, the knowledge

that was supposed to be obtained through the text and that became valuable as it was

affirmed in the social context was a very narrow and particular segment of the possible

understandings. William and Kristy had come to adopt the classroom epistemology which

was evidenced when they waited for the teacher to give the authorized response before

236

writing their definitions. Students who were labeled as struggling readers had not adopted

that epistemology.

Further, William used his understanding of the accepted epistemology to socially

position Gary as less competent. In the discussion about harvest, William repeatedly

negated Gary‟s contributions to the discussion based upon the fact that his definition did

not fit the meaning of the word as it was used in the text related to harvesting potatoes. In

defending his position, he used tones, exasperated gestures and facial expressions that

indicated to the group members that he was frustrated and impatient with the continuing

discussion, thereby communicating his superiority in knowledge over Gary‟s. Megan

showed uptake on this position when she took up William‟s definition and expressed her

own exasperation with other group members who they did not immediately accept it. She

leaned toward Gary and Kristy and increased her speaking volume stating, “Plow. It

means plow. It means plow, plow, plow, plow, plow” (accompanied by exaggerated hand

flapping) (Transcript 15). Even though William‟s definition did not align with the

teacher‟s, and he later changed his written answer, there is evidence that the interaction

positioned William as the knowledgeable student, and Gary as less knowledgeable. Gary

himself took up on that positioning evidenced by the fact that he ended up writing

William‟s definition (“Plow”) as his response on his written sheet.

Miss King, the fourth-grade teacher recognized the epistemological position, and

commented that she felt forced to use and teach from that perspective because it aligned

with the ideological and epistemological assumptions behind the state assessments.

Though Miss King expressed her discouragement at having to teach students to limit their

237

responses to text in ways that reflected only what was explicitly written, she indicated

that she felt compelled to train students to do so in order that they would meet the

requirements for good scores on their achievement tests. She commented that students

were counted down on state assessment tests for writing about what they knew rather

than what they read. In talking about the need to train students in writing to the format of

state achievement tests she stated:

We keep talking [to the students] about the fact that on these tests they

don‟t necessarily want to know what you know. They want to know what

you read. „Cause a lot of my upper level kids would add a lot of

information because they‟ve made connections with the story as they‟ve

gone through and they‟ll write about them, and it won‟t help them on their

results because they want to know what was in the passage. (Interview,

5/7/2009)

Repeatedly in the classrooms that were observed, students expressed more

comprehensive and nuanced understandings of events about which they read or

vocabulary words, but the epistemology of the classroom limited a conception of

knowledge to a set of authorized facts and practices, and limited the acceptable student

activities of gaining knowledge to accepting and repeating the knowledge that was

presented by the state standards, textbooks and teachers.

Surveillance

An additional feature of the organization of reading instruction that contributed to

some students being constituted as struggling readers was the great deal of surveillance

that was a feature of the classroom. Though reading was conceived of as an individual

skill, the teachers‟ expectations in the classroom demanded students to publicly read

aloud and be evaluated by both teachers and peers. During reading instruction, teachers

238

regularly demanded students to read aloud to one another, with reading miscues being

publicly corrected. When a teacher was involved, he or she interrupted regularly to

correct a mispronunciation of a word or to give an assist with words when students

hesitated in their reading. As in the case of Julie and Michelle, even when a teacher was

present, students cued, prompted or corrected one another, either publicly or

surreptitiously. When a teacher was not listening, students took on the role of correcting

one another. The public correcting of one another became quite competitive (see

Transcripts 2-6 and 14), and students used opportunities to correct one another as a public

negotiation for social position. Julie used the reading group as a venue to correct her

friend Michelle‟s reading miscues, and to thereby position herself as more skilled and

Michelle as less skilled. Even when Michelle contested Julie‟s correction as also

incorrect, Julie mocked Michelle‟s miscues and publicized herself as more competent

than Michelle. In completing the worksheets in partner reading or in writing on the white

board during the Science Review Game, students monitored each other‟s reading and

writing and felt the freedom (and perhaps responsibility) to correct one another.

Further, students‟ understandings of vocabulary, comprehension and application

of their reading was observed and evaluated in the forms of classroom discussion,

completion of workbook or worksheet activities and presentations. Thus, reading was

conceptualized as an activity for public observation and evaluation. Reading that counted

was reading that was publicly completed, observed, assessed and corrected. This aligns

with the comments about the community that viewed school as a site where activity

should be closely monitored by others, and a place that was open to public criticism,

239

comment and intervention. Because the organization of reading instruction involved

substantial surveillance and ongoing public evaluations by both teachers and peers,

literacy events became sites where students vied for superiority and could position

themselves as more or less competent readers. The standard on which students evaluated

each other is their ability to orally, word-for-word, perfectly deliver the text as it was

written. However, evidence indicates that good readers use multiple strategies to make

meaning from text, and that maintaining the standard of word-for-word reading as well as

evaluating reading skill through oral reading is problematic.

Reading as Word-for-word, Perfectly Rendered Oral Reading

Students at Mapleton Elementary School interacted from the assumption that

“good‟ reading was word-for-word, perfectly rendered oral reading. As noted in the

reading groups, students or teachers corrected every mispronounced word and assisted

students who hesitated by saying the word for them. Struggling readers reported that they

felt shy to read in front of the class because they were afraid of making mistakes. Flirty

maintained the expectation of perfect oral reading both in the way she described her

reading difficulties and in the way she described a classmate who she chose as a “good”

reader. Related to why she didn‟t feel she was a good reader, Flirty stated, “Because

when I‟m reading out loud, like I mess up a lot because I get nervous…and all the people

just listen to me” (Interview, 5/13/08). When describing a classmate that she identified as

a good reader she stated, “And so I think he‟s a good reader because he reads like, not

fast, but a perfect pace, and like he don‟t miss no words. And like you can understand

him and he reads really loud” (Interview, 5/13/09).

240

The students assumed that good reading required every word to be correctly

decoded and read. Research on reading using retrospective miscue analysis and the study

of eye movements (Goodman & Marek, 1996; Goodman, Goodman & Paulson, 2009)

has called into question this assumption. A key conception that has been challenged is the

assumption that reading is primarily the technical skill of accurately decoding words from

a written text. In contrast, many researchers now recognize that gaining meaning from

text is the central focus of reading. Goodman, et al. (2009) give evidence that “readers do

not process meaningful text letter by letter, word by word, or character by character,” and

that “[a]ll readers make miscues” (p. 158). Further, they claim that making miscues and

omitting or guessing at words is a way that a reader engages with text and is an important

part of the meaning-making process. Further, their research with adult struggling readers

in relation to miscue analysis indicated that the adult readers‟ misconceptions about the

nature of reading as word-by-word, perfectly rendered oral reading and conceptions of

ideals related to fluency impaired their ability to improve their reading as well as

negatively impacted their perceptions of themselves as readers. Goodman and Marek

(1996) described patterns and reflections of struggling readers:

Each reader has misconceptions about the reading process. As these

readers reflected on the reading process, they demonstrated they had

bought into a skills and subskills approach to reading. They rarely

indicated that reading is for the purpose of enjoyment, constructing

meaning from the text, or gathering information to answer questions that

interest them. They stated that to become better readers they needed to

perfect their use of skills: to sound out words, look up words in

dictionaries, and never skip words. Often they suggested that they didn‟t

do such things because they were careless or lazy…These misconceptions

about reading are often reflected in the ways in which such students read.

They read slowly and carefully, they make few omissions and insertions of

function words, and they are willing to sound out words and produce

241

nonword substitutions rather than take the risks necessary to make a good

guess and produce a high-quality miscue that makes sense within the

context of the material they are reading. They strongly believe that reading

is attending to each word and each punctuation mark. In other words,

surface features of the text control what and how they read rather than

their own abilities to select only features necessary to construct meaning.

(pp. 7-8)

The students that were observed in third-, fourth- and fifth-grades in Mapleton

Elementary had by and large adopted the assumption that word-by-word reading was the

ideal. However, by the middle-childhood years, the emphasis of reading instruction in the

curriculum guides and achievement tests had shifted from a focus on decoding to a focus

on comprehension. In the state standards book, after third grade there are no longer

benchmarks for Standard 1: Phonemic Awareness, Word Recognition and Fluency.

However, among the students, perfectly rendered oral reading remained a way that they

evaluated their personal reading and the reading of their peers, and a way by which they

manipulated social status. The struggling readers had not mastered the performance skill

of word-by-word reading and focused their energies on getting the words off the page to

the detriment of their understanding of the text. Michelle stated, “Usually when I see a

long word I try to sound it out and I forget about the stuff I‟ve already read” (Interview,

3/18/08). Yetta Goodman discussed the way that an overemphasis on word-by-word

perfect rendering can undercut comprehension:

We know from miscue analysis research that readers sometimes use

strategies that disrupt comprehension. This happens when readers focus

too much on sounding out and on slow and too careful attention to surface

text features such as spelling patterns, word analysis, and grammatical

information...In such cases readers use strategies that lead to short circuits

in the reading process. (Goodman, et al., 2009, p. 153)

242

Teacher W recognized the pattern that Goodman spoke of in the struggling readers with

whom she worked: “A lot of the struggling readers take so much time and effort sounding

out the words that they are getting no meaning at all” (Interview, 5/19/09).

Thus, there is evidence that some students had taken up a definition of reading as

being perfectly rendered word-by-word oral reading which has been shown to be an

inaccurate understanding of how good readers actually interact with text. Further, there is

evidence that students evaluated one another‟s reading abilities and differentially gave

reading opportunities to one another based upon their evaluation of their classmate‟s oral

reading. For some students, the performance of oral reading became the focus of their

efforts to the detriment of their ability to make sense of the text. For others, it became an

emotionally charged event that undermined their confidence and discouraged their

participation in certain literacy based classroom activities.

Misassessment and Undervaluation of Students’ Reading

The result of the definitions of reading that were utilized in formulating reading

instruction, the epistemological stance that was established for the classrooms, and the

practice of surveillance resulted in misassessment and undervaluation of what students

actually knew and could do. Gary‟s knowledge of farming went unrecognized. In the

Science Review Game, the contributions to the knowledge and text interpretation of the

team from Michelle and Josh were negated by Tess‟s efforts to overshadow her peers

during her public displays of knowledge and by the teacher‟s public comment that

indicated her belief that only Tess had been engaging in textual usage. Flirty and Josh

expressed that they could access a lot of the content of the reading if they were allowed to

243

read silently to themselves, but their reticence to display their public reading skills

positioned them as peripheral participants in the sphere of classroom reading interactions

and consequently socially marked them as poor readers. Gary and Steven‟s inability to

selectively choose what would be valued in expressing their knowledge from the text in

the products that they produced resulting in poor grades and a personal evaluation of

themselves as bad readers.

Some of the struggling readers showed evidence of doing a great deal of reading.

Nico reported reading graphic novels and comics as well as playing multiple video games

that required some reading. Shawna read cookbooks and cooking magazines with her

mother. Josh spent extensive time on the internet. Flirty reported, “Like when I have

nothin‟ to do, I always go to my room. I have a big ole stack of books that I sometimes

read” (Interview, 5/13/09). Students who were labeled as struggling readers demonstrated

that they understood a lot of the content that they were expected to read, and that they

read a substantial quantity of text. However, because the definition of acceptable

“reading” in the classroom was limited to reading textbooks and related “literary”

materials of the nature that showed up on state tests, and because the responses to texts

that counted were limited to either word-by-word perfectly rendered oral reading or the

writing of authorized answers to comprehension questions, the knowledge and reading

ability of certain students was undervalued. The struggling students considered

themselves to be poor readers because they did not read the kinds of things that they

believed to count as “reading.” They did not perform the social cues, such as carrying and

reading thick library books, that marked them as readers by their peers. A group of

244

researchers – Alvermann (2001, 2006) and O‟Brien, Beach & Scharber (2007) – stated

that some students who are considered poor readers in school are undervalued as readers.

This assessment is based on the quantity and difficulty of reading that students do outside

the classrooms on topics and in contexts that are not reflected in school practices. There

is evidence at Mapleton Elementary that students, teachers and parents frequently

misassessed some students‟ knowledge and undervalued their literacy skills based on the

way the students performed in the classroom.

Moral Demands and Obligations of Classroom Reading

There is a moral dimension to the way that reading instruction is organized as

well as to the social roles that are presented and naturalized in the process of literacy

instruction. The ways that reading are presented to students and the ways that students

become valued and hierarchically positioned based upon their reading skills has

implications beyond the classroom.

First, limiting the definition of reading in certain ways establishes an inequitable

power dynamic giving some students advantage over others:

[T]he effect of a single definition of reading is to deny the great variation

of social practices that would otherwise count as reading and would in

effect be a description of a specific reading practice rather than a

definition of reading per se. When a specific reading practice (or a specific

set of reading practices) is taken as the definition of reading, other reading

practices may be marginalized, or dismissed as not being reading and

therefore as not legitimate ways to use written language. Whoever has the

authority to define reading has the power to determine who is a reader

and who is not, whose interpretation of a text is acceptable and whose is

not and how and for what written language may be used. The creation of a

single definition of reading (which is itself a literacy practice) creates a

standard that legitimates giving power, rewards, resources to those who

adhere to authorized reading practices and denies it to others; and

perniciously, it makes the distribution of power based on adherence to a

245

standard model of reading seem common-sensical and unassailable.

(Stierer & Bloome, 1994, pp. 54-55, italics original)

The definition of reading that was established through legal policies, school policies and

organization of classroom instruction gave the students opportunities to differentially

evaluate one another in terms of reading skills. Even though some of the students who

were labeled as struggling readers had adequate technical skills and engaged in reading

outside the classroom, the boundaries and definitions that governed the classroom

interactions created 1) a set of hierarchical slots into which students were to be placed,

and 2) the opportunity and standards by which students could hierarchically position

themselves and others. This created a competitive setting in which some students would

be winners at the expense of others, who would inevitably take the positions at the

bottom of the ladder. Despite the rhetoric of “No Child Left Behind,” the institution of

state achievement tests only seemed to increase the intensity of the competition between

students as well as more narrowly define student reading success, thereby limiting the

range of student abilities that would be counted as successful.

The establishment of policies and procedures that hierarchically rank and

discriminate between students has consequences for students. In the classes that were

observed, literacy events were sites where students negotiated their social identities and

roles. In the ongoing debate about the vocabulary word “harvest,” Gary and William

debated vigorously over whose definition would be accepted by the group, and thereby

negotiated who had social power. During the interim lull when the teacher was giving

instructions, the boys changed their tone of voice and demeanor, and carried on a friendly

word play over the word, “Dum-dum.” When teacher finished, the boys resumed their

246

debate and continued until William had bested Gary in the argument, establishing himself

as the leader of the group because of his expertise in interpreting text. There were social

consequences for Gary and William in the interchange that went beyond the particular

literacy event. William gained status and personal satisfaction in being right and having

group members follow his lead. Gary lost status since his team members disvalued his

contributions. Further, Gary was not commended in his efforts to read and interpret

literature, even though his contributions were valid and at least as detailed as the

contributions of others in the group. The interaction contributed to Gary‟s belief that he

was a poor reader and to the assumption of a particular role in the social life of the

classroom. Leaders of the class acted with confidence, assurance and aplomb. Gary

became more defensive and insecure. He considered himself to be a “dummy,” “stupid,”

and an “idiot”. Thus, the literacy events and the literacy learning that was taking place in

the classroom was a thoroughly social event, with consequences for the identity and self-

esteem of the participants.

Further, there is evidence that the organization of literacy events places moral

obligations on students, which in turn impacts the social relations that are constructed

between peers. Davies & Hunt (2000) make the case that in current Western discourses,

binaries are set up and applied in schools which constitute the world in hierarchical ways.

These discourses privilege one category over another and define the categories based

upon a privileged terminology. In this case, “struggling reader” is in opposition to “good

reader” with “struggling” being a dependent term, defined in opposition to characteristics

that are constructed as “good.” The privileged category is often considered to be the “first

247

term” in the binary and goes as unmarked, while the different or deficient category is

marked and positioned in relation to or disconnect from the privileged group:

The first term is the privileged term and is often equated in an unstated

way with humanness, normality, and the way anyone would be and could

be if they were not “different,” that difference being understood as a

deviance from the ascendant term. It is a deviance that they are not

necessarily able to correct, however, since their category membership may

specifically preclude the behavior defined as normal for those positioned

in the ascendant category. Within the discourse of teaching-as-usual there

is a sense in which competent students are also unmarked in terms of the

good/bad student binary. These students, with their teacher, create the

context that is recognizable as a classroom…Those who disrupt this order

are “problem students” and are marked as such. The problem is seen to lie

in them and is read in terms of their difference from the others. (Davies &

Hunt, 2000, pp. 108-109)

Students at Mapleton Elementary School divided themselves into the binaries of

good and struggling readers based upon the standards for literacy and literacy events that

were established by the school and the teachers. In contrast to the focus on reading skills

that the adults in the community seemed to focus on in constructing the binary of good or

struggling readers, the students in many cases responded to the moral obligations that

were established by the classroom organization of instruction.

In the partner reading exercise (Transcripts 7-13), the teacher established the

social moral demand to work with a partner and complete a series of tasks. She also

established the individual moral obligation to complete the pages of the journal and turn

them in for an individual grade. Tex faced the moral dilemma of collaborating with a

partner who was either unwilling or unable to participate in the social part of the activity

in the way that it was expected by the teacher. Josh displayed his understanding of the

individual moral obligation that had been placed on him to complete the assignment that

248

was to be turned in to the teacher in the allotted time frame when he sought to rush Tex

through the last few minutes of the lesson. The conflicting approaches to the moral

demands that had been placed on them in the literacy activity created a site of social

negotiation and positioning. Tex and Josh negotiated their social relations in ways that

resulted in a hierarchical social relationship as Tex sought to position the pair of them as

students who were willing and able to participate in the teacher‟s agenda of working as

partners, while Josh sought to participate in the teacher‟s agenda of individually

completing the packet. The resulting tensions and conflicts became the site where Josh

became positioned as incompetent, resistant or helpless and Tex became positioned as

knowledgeable, organized and in charge.

In another example, the demands of the teachers that students read aloud in round-

robin turns then answer comprehension questions about the reading in reading groups

placed a moral demand upon both the individual students and the group to collaborate

and complete the assigned task in order to be evaluated as “good readers.” Because the

act of oral reading with adequate decoding, pace and intonation was beyond the skill or

confidence level of some students, the students collaborated to get their group members

through the exercise in various ways, to meet the moral obligation of the assignment. In

the case of Steven, group members negotiated the turn taking ritual in ways that limited

his need to read orally. In the case of Michelle, Julie surreptitiously sought to assist her in

her oral reading. The surreptitious nature of Julie‟s efforts demonstrated her

understanding of the assumption that “reading” is an individual rather than a group task,

so she sought to assist her classmate but keep her assistance “invisible.”

249

In the subsequent comprehension exercises, various students collaborated with

Michelle to give her answers or let her “check” her work by looking at theirs. Again, the

surreptitious nature of their assistance made it evident that all participants recognized the

moral stricture connected to completing comprehension questions – that each student

would individually complete the task. The students perceived contradictory moral

obligations in this event. They recognized a moral obligation to help their classmate who

they understood to be unable to complete the work, but at the same time recognized the

moral obligation related to completing work individually to avoid the moral

condemnation of “cheating.”

In the Science Review Game, Michelle, Josh and Nico fell under moral rebukes,

when the teacher questioned the extent to which they had been actively participating in

the game, whether they studied from notes, and whether they would study for the Science

test at home. The use of words like “should have” or “it should be” indicate how socially

established norms are placed on students. Those who do not or cannot meet those

demands are judged as morally deficient.

Through the negotiations of the moral demands of the literacy events, students

were positioned in relation to one another. Those who were able to construct themselves

as competent individuals were those who had the abilities and confidence to meet the

moral obligations of the class activities in the ways that were expected by the teacher and

the school. Those who were unable or unwilling to meet those demands needed help or

redirection, and thus were constructed as incompetent or resistant and positioned as

strugglers.

250

Student Uptake on Peer Positioning

The data shows that the ways that school personnel organize literacy instruction

provide social spaces and processes whereby students become positioned hierarchically

and labeled in relation to their literacy skills. However, an additional feature of the social

process of constituting a student as a struggling reader has become visible. In this study, a

number of students demonstrated weak reading skills as evaluated by state standards,

academic achievement tests and classroom grades. Not all of these students ended up

being socially positioned and labeled as struggling readers. Students who formed a

habitus that was recognized as a struggling reader were both hierarchically positioned by

others in the school community as a weak reader and accepted that subject position by

adopting certain social and academic practices that conformed to the offered social

position. The students who came to be considered struggling readers in the middle

childhood classrooms were those who either chose to, or were unable to act in agentive

ways. The students interacted with their classmates in ways that portrayed them as

helpless, powerless, resistant or incompetent, and over time, their ways of being in the

classroom were normalized and accepted as durable ways of being, placing them on a

trajectory leading to limited school progress. Other students with comparable reading

skills were offered the same social position, but were able to effectively act in agentive

ways that prevented them from being categorized and labeled, and thereby maintained a

more optimistic school trajectory. In the classes I observed, this happened in a variety of

ways.

251

Some of the students had early difficulties with the reading skills that were used

to assess student reading (dis)ability. Steven, Kaytie, Flirty and Ross all acquired the

reading skills required in the classroom with more difficulty and at a slower pace than

their peers. Though they were all progressing in their literacy abilities, they were

perpetually behind the level of most of their peers, and had trouble completing the

assigned tasks in the time frame that was allowed for completion. As a consequence, they

had developed a demeanor that belied their frustration, tension and embarrassment.

During language arts classes, they avoided eye contact with the teacher or their peers, and

they never volunteered to read aloud. When asked direct questions, they responded in low

voices or answered, “I don‟t know.” During literacy events the four students sought to

become as socially “invisible” as possible.

The result of this adopted demeanor was seen in Steven‟s reading group. Other

students responded to his perceived inability or unwillingness to participate by making

fun of him, giving him special assistance, or collaborating to move past his turn at

reading. This circular, recursive social positioning further established him as a weak

reader since he did not fulfill the expectations for reading participation. The negative

responses from his peers reinforced his negative perspective of himself with regard to his

reading ability and desire to participate. The spiraling process worked in a process of

negative synergy, emotionally keeping Steven from being able to act agentively – partly

because of his poor self-image and partly because the ways he presented himself set him

up as a target for social ostracism from his peers.

252

Michelle and Josh did not take a socially invisible role, but socially enacted a

subject position by placing themselves as subordinate to others and in need of assistance

to complete the required activities. Michelle repeatedly volunteered to read or answer

questions, yet acted unknowledgeable when she was given the opportunity by the teacher

or her peers. In the Science Review Game, she demonstrated a high level of content

knowledge, but was not able to translate that into a public demonstration of that

knowledge. Instead, she placed herself under the control of Tess, and allowed her to

direct her activities. During reading group, she was corrected multiple times by her

classmate, Julie, though she contested the assistance. She looked on other students‟

papers in order to complete written assignments. All of those activities showed the ways

that she conceived of herself as adopting the position of weak reader, and seeking

assistance from her peers.

In a similar way, during partner reading, Josh took up on the social position of

weak reader by acting as a student who was unorganized, inarticulate, and dependent

upon his partner. Tex took up on this enactment and treated Josh as a struggling reader,

taking responsibility for assisting him and prompting him in the completion of the

activity.

Nico and Gary both sought to act in agentive ways, but because they did not do so

in ways that met the moral obligations or accepted formats, their contributions were not

heard as legitimate. Nico did not participate in class in ways that were considered to meet

the moral obligations of the classroom. He did not do what he was told he should do, and

he did not do it in the way that he was told he should do it. In the Science Review Game

253

he acted agentively to avoid negative social positioning of his peers. It is unclear whether

in all cases he was resisting the social order, or whether he was unable to meet the

demands, but regardless, he had taken up on his perceived reading weakness by

disengaging. His peers in the Science Review Game generally ignored him, and he gave

little evidence that he understood or was willing to play according to the rules for literacy

events. Consequently, he was categorized as a struggling reader.

Gary, on the other hand, sought to engage in the literacy event of reading group in

ways that he perceived to meet the moral demands of the activity as well as the academic

requirements of the task. He was working hard to participate in the group. However, he

did not use the detailed social cues of the classroom to perform in a way that was

recognized as knowledgeable. His uptake on being positioned as a poor reader was to

“fight back,” adamantly presenting and holding a position in relation to the text. His

interaction with William made it clear that he was on the defensive and was battling to

show himself as agentive in gaining a respected position in the group. However, his

failure to recognize the text as the source of knowledge, and his failure to produce the

appropriate answer in his journal positioned him as unsuccessful in maneuvering the

social context of the reading group. The resulting self-condemnation and demeanor of

defeat communicated the way that he had grudgingly acknowledged his status of being a

struggling reader.

In contrast to students who took up on the proffered position of struggling reader,

Julie represented an alternative uptake to the offered positioning. Julie was not

considered by herself, the teacher or her peers to be a struggling reader. Even though she

254

was not a strong oral reader, performed marginally on state achievement tests and got

average grades in Language Arts classes, she did not become positioned as a struggling

reader, nor did she take on certain practices that characterized other students labeled as

struggling readers. In Transcript 2, Julie made decoding errors in her reading that were

made visible when she publicly corrected Michelle. However, Michelle was publicly

marked as making a reading error, while Julie was not. In addition, Julie expressed a

consistently positive perspective of herself as a reader and as a contributing member of

the reading group, taking on the role “teacher” by of assisting and correcting the

decoding errors of her friend. This interactional pattern was observed in multiple

instructional settings with the end result that Julie was not considered a struggling reader,

while Michelle was.

Julie demonstrated difficulties with decoding, which impacted her public oral

reading in similar ways to other students who had been labeled as struggling readers.

During reading groups, Julie was corrected by others frequently in a similar way to

Michelle and Steven. She frequently confused vocabulary words. As an example, on a

fifth-grade Science test, to the question “Give an example of instinct,” she responded, “do

do bird is instinct. It‟s a type is no longer here” (Student Product). The difference appears

to be in Julie‟s uptake to the social opportunities that were made available for her to be

positioned as struggling. In two cases it was noted that classmates laughed at her

decoding mistakes, but Julie did not appear to be embarrassed by their response. She

corrected her error and kept reading. She believed that she was a good reader and knew

lots of words (Interview, 2/7/08). She enthusiastically participated in most large and

255

small group activities, frequently volunteering to read aloud or answer questions. Miss

King commented on Julie‟s efforts to meet the expectations of the classroom:

Julie is very confident in herself. I mean she loves to do the work

and…like even with her math when it says explain, she will spend the time

and write three or four sentences to show what she‟s done. It could be

totally wrong, but she‟s explained it. (Interview, 3/12/08)

The contrasts between Julie and other students who had taken up a struggling

reader habitus were plainly observed. Julie acted on her perception that she was a good

reader and her peers treated her as if she was one. In contrast to Michelle, students let

Julie struggle with decoding and make self-corrections. Julie expressed enthusiasm and

optimism during literacy events, and filled in every blank on any assignment or test. At

one point Miss King commented on the fact that Josh used Julie as a resource for getting

help with assignments. She stated, “He sees her as being a good reader because she

portrays herself as a good reader” (Interview, 3/12/08). The recursive process of Julie‟s

presenting herself as a reader resulted in a positive uptake from her peers (and teacher)

and encouragement for her to work toward independence in her reading, which in turn

reinforced her belief in her ability to read well. The class had cooperatively negotiated a

cycle of positive synergy for Julie in ways that worked as negative synergy for other

students in the class.

The ways that school personnel organized classroom instruction set standards by

which students‟ reading was evaluated, established parameters on the kinds of texts and

knowledge that were counted in assessing reading and set moral obligations that had to be

met in order for a student to be considered a good reader. When a student was unable to

meet any of the established standards, they might become positioned as inferior to their

256

peers in multiple ways. Once the position of struggling reader was made possible and

offered to the student through the differentiated responses of their peers and teacher, the

uptake of individual students socially solidified their position as they accepted or rejected

the subject position through their adopted mannerisms and the way they responded to

their classmates in constructing social relationships.

This process was not a result of isolated incidents, but was the result of a chain of

exchanges that occurred repeatedly over the days, weeks and years during which the

students interacted in school. As part of this process, issues of time permeated the

discourse surrounding struggling readers and were implicated in the ways that struggling

readers were defined and marked, as well as how collective memories were constructed

and employed by members of the school community. Students used collective memories

to position one another. These memories were also implicated in the ways that available

classroom positions came to be considered as the only “normal” and “reasonable” ones

available, leading some students, over time, to develop a habitus of a struggling reader.

Issues of Time in Constituting of Struggling Readers

As students positioned one another in literacy events and came to take up the

offered social positions, the students were working in and through time. In the

discussions of struggling readers and in the observations of students as they collectively

negotiated their social positions, time was a topic that was referred to and used in

multiple ways to both construct the subject position of struggling reader and to mark

students as they were positioned and positioned themselves.

257

Conceptions of time are social constructions that inform the way that people view

the world as well as how they view their position and role in society. The ways that

people metaphorically divide their lives into time periods or the way that people consider

themselves moving through time influences the ways that they conceive of the world and

thereby impacts how they interact with time, space and others within time and space.

Wertsch (2002) discusses how groups of people develop ways of thinking about

themselves and others as situated in time and space through the process of collective

remembering. This kind of remembering is often considered to be history, but Wertsch

problematizes that idea by noting that history is considered to be a comprehensive record

of past events, while collective remembering is the act of narrativing events that

happened in the past which are being remembered in the present for a particular purpose.

In discussing what historians do, Lotman (1990) points out that representing past events

is not a transparent recording process, but is mediated by the ways that the events are

narratived and made public:

The historian cannot observe events, but acquires narratives of them from

the written sources. And even when the historian is an observer of the

events described (examples of this rare occurrence are Herodotus and

Julius Caesar) the observations still have to be mentally transformed into a

verbal text, since the historian writes not of what was seen but a digest of

what was seen in narrative form…The transformation of an event into a

text involves, first, narrating it in the system of a particular language, i.e.,

subjecting it to a previously given structural organization. The event itself

may seem to the viewer (or participant) to be disorganized (chaotic) or to

have an organization which is beyond the field of interpretation, or indeed

to be an accumulation of several discrete structures. But when an event is

retold by means of language then it inevitably acquires a structural unity.

This unity, which in fact belongs on to the expression level, inevitably

becomes transferred to the level of content too. So the very fact of

transforming an event into a text raises the degree of its organization.

(Lotman, 2002, p. 14)

258

Zerubavel (2003) elaborates on the ways that collective memories intersect with

what he terms “timescapes” or “sociomental topographies” of the past. Zerubavel

explains how the collective memories of groups impact the present:

A sociomental topography of the past helps highlight this pronouncedly

social dimension of human memory by revealing how entire communities,

and not just individuals, remember the past…In transcending strictly

personal recollections, the sociology of memory effectively foregrounds

what we come to remember as social beings. While there are many

memories that we share with no one else, there are specific recollections

that are commonly shared by entire groups. One‟s memories as a Pole,

Mormon or judge, for example are clearly not just personal…Indeed

acquiring a group‟s memories and thereby identifying with its collective

past is part of the process of acquiring any social identity. (Zerubavel,

2003, pp. 2-3)

Zerubavel (2003) continues to describe “mnemonic strategies” and “conventional

schematic formats that help us mentally string past events into coherent, culturally

meaningful historical narratives” (p. 7):

the major formal patterns along which we normally envision time flowing

(linear versus circular, straight versus zigzag, legato versus staccato,

unilinear versus multilinear), as quite explicitly evident in the general

plots (“progress,” “decline,” “rise and fall”) and subplots (“again and

again”) of the stories through which we usually come to narrate its

passage…the collectively perceived “density” of the past, as typically

manifested in the quasi-topographical layout of the mental relief maps

produced by the sharp contrast between what we conventionally recall as

“eventful” periods and essentially empty historical “lulls.” (Zerubavel,

2003, p. 7)

The conceptions of timescapes and collective memory become important in

describing the ways that time was conceived of and applied to the lives of student

readers. These understandings of time do not relate to the actual moment by moment

passing of time, but to the ways that people socially organized time and place and

259

socially marked time periods in ways that impacted students‟ lives and social relations. In

the study of the eight struggling readers at Mapleton Elementary School, conceptions of

time permeated the discussion of reading and impacted the ways that students viewed

themselves and their classmates, thus having moral implications for students.

Implications of Time in Labeling and Enactment of Struggling Readers

Time in various forms was identified as an indicator by which individual students

were labeled as struggling readers. Students gave evidence, both in interview data and in

their classroom interactions that various conceptions of time controlled their thinking and

acting related to reading skills, and publicly marked them as strugglers.

Pace was noted as a marker of oral reading skill. Reading too fast to understand or

reading too slowly were both indicated as difficulties for students labeled as struggling

readers. Mrs. Harper commented on Kaytie‟s reading difficulties,

She was definitely a struggling reader and she had trouble – fluency was

obviously an issue. She was very slow and that was due to the fact that

she…would come across words that she didn‟t know what they said and

would have difficulty decoding the word. Due to that, she had trouble and

reading was very difficult for her. (Interview, 5/7/09)

Miss King commented that struggling readers had difficulty in completing classroom

tasks because they read slowly and didn‟t have enough time to go back and reread in

order to complete comprehension exercises (Interview, 5/8/09). Michelle commented on

her peers‟ recognition of her own slow reading pace. Michelle stated that she thought she

was bad at reading. When asked what made her think that, she replied, “I read slower

than everybody else” (Interview, 3/18/08).

260

On the other hand, Miss King indicated that one of Ross‟s biggest problems was

the need to slow down and make sense of the text he read. Ross showed uptake on this

idea when he was asked what a good reader does. He replied, “Stop at all the periods.

Read carefully and read slow” (Interview, 5/8/09).

In the reading groups, there was a continual discussion of reading pace related to

the progression of turns and the pace of reading progress. In Steven‟s reading group,

Annie pressured her group members to move forward with the assigned reading, and

expressed frustration with those whose reading ability slowed the progress. Vying for

turns to read consumed a substantial amount of the group‟s time, interrupting the reading

of the text as a coherent whole and disrupting the ability for some students to make sense

of what they read. In the Science Review Game, Tess used her classmates‟ slowness at

reading and writing as an excuse to take control of the group. Because she was able to

quickly find answers in her notes and to write quickly on the white board, she ended up

controlling the public displays by which the group was evaluated. Thus, the pace of

reading as well as the pace of literacy events impacted the social relations in the group

that served to differentiate students with respect to their reading skill.

The amount of time that students read books outside of class was also a factor that

both teachers and students marked as an indicator of a good reader versus a poor reader.

Mrs. Harper stated that part of the difficulties in reading that some students faced was a

result of limited reading, especially reading outside school time. She commented about

the struggling readers in her classroom:

I doubt that Kaytie read much out of the classroom. I know personally

from her background with her family that they are involved in other

261

things, in sports and things like that. So, I don‟t know how much she

would have spent in reading time. And Steven I know for a fact does not

like it, and his mom would tell me, “I have a very difficult time getting

him to do his homework.” He doesn‟t enjoy reading, he doesn‟t like

reading. So I know for him that he did not do much outside of school.

(Interview, 5/7/09)

The discussion of how much time students spent reading, especially outside of school

was invoked as a marker that differentiated a good reader from a poor one and was given

as a reason why some students might be labeled as struggling.

Trajectories and Futures

Students viewed themselves on a reading trajectory and incorporated the reading

trajectory into a larger academic and life trajectory. Students positioned themselves

within a narrative in which the present was a precursor for “important” reading that they

would face in the future. Adam (2006, 2009) contends that the concept of “futures” as

produced by multiple social institutions at the levels of the individual, family, social

group, company and nation and is central to a person‟s conception of themselves as a

cultural being. A person‟s conception of where they are headed in the future impacts their

ideas of progress, ethics, values, purposes, motives, options, choices, responsibility and

vocation.

Students connected reading with adult life and jobs. In the fourth-grade

interviews, when asked why they thought reading was important, five of sixteen students

indicated that they thought that the reason that reading was taught in school was to

prepare them for jobs or adult life. The number of students who independently responded

to the same question in very similar ways indicates that they were being taught or

socialized into such a conception and that they were echoing the words of adults.

262

However, for some students, the long term, seemingly irrelevant goal of reading

gave them little reason to spend a lot of time and effort reading in third-, fourth- or fifth-

grades. Josh expressed this viewpoint in his interview:

1. Researcher: You said – why do you think schools and teachers

make you read – you said so you can learn. Okay, that‟s a good

standard answer. But I want you to tell me a little bit more. Learn

what? Why are they trying to make you learn? Why do you have

reading class?

2. Josh: So they can make you a better reader.

3. Researcher: And:: why do you need to be a better reader?

4. Josh: Because some day you might have a job you might have to

read a lot.

5. Researcher: Okay, so it‟s sometime when you grow up…then why

do you:: think it‟s important to read…

6. Josh: I really don‟t but…

7. Researcher: You don‟t think it‟s important to read//

8. Josh: //Well I do:: I

actually realized it a couple of days ago.

9. Researcher: Okay, what did you realize?

10. Josh: I realized that it‟s important to read because someday you

might have to do something and if you didn‟t really read when you

were a little kid, you couldn‟t read when you‟re an adult=and it

might be harder for you to read.

11. Researcher: Okay, now since you don‟t like to read, do you think

that makes school harder for you?

12. Josh: No.

13. Researcher: No? Because you do a lot of reading at school//

263

14. Josh: //Yeah,

and I‟m forced to read.

Josh communicated the understanding that the main reason for reading was for some

future use in employment. (Line 4). In a moment of honesty, he stated that he really

didn‟t think reading was important (Line 6), but later returned to the line of reasoning that

it was important for some future, adult use (Line 10). His response seemed to be echoing

the words he had heard, since at several points he made it clear that he really didn‟t

believe reading was all that important. This understanding of the reason for reading may

be one of the factors that discouraged some students from engaging in reading as a

pleasurable or applicable activity. They had been socialized to understand that it was

important, but only in the distant future and to accomplish work. For some students, like

those whose parents were engaged in farming, it may be surmised that the employment

tasks that they observed their parents completing were not directly related to high levels

of reading. Thus they saw little connection between the reasons that were being given for

working hard at reading in the present and their future trajectory in their profession. The

concept of time, then, not only marked students as struggling readers, but was used to

build a conception of the uses and value of reading that lacked motivational power for

some students.

Collective Memories Related to Social Positioning as Struggling Readers

Finally, the concept of collective memories played a role in the constitution and

durability of the habitus associated with struggling readers. By the middle childhood

years, students had developed a shared history and set of collective memories of student‟s

early reading difficulties that both positioned the students and created the identity that

264

they had taken up. The long term effects of being positioned as a struggling reader had

become durable in ways that seemed natural and inevitable to those involved.

Students functioned from an established hierarchy based upon reading ability. By

the time students had reached the middle-childhood grades, they had had at least three

years together in school. In the case of Mapleton Elementary School, there were only two

classrooms at each grade level, so students were yearly divided between the two classes

with limited numbers of students. Most students had been classmates for at least two

years of their school experience. Also, in the small community, many of the students

interacted with each other outside the school, at church, on sports teams or playing with

each other as neighbors. As students entered school and had early experiences with

reading, students, teachers and community members formed a set of collective memories

related to school as a hierarchical field and the rankings of particular students with

respect to their reading ability.

When students interacted with one another and used comments and social cues to

position themselves as inferior or superior, in many cases it was not based on their actual

reading performance or ability at the moment, but upon expectations that had become

naturalized as “how it was.” In the case of Steven‟s reading group, the group members

collaborated to mark Steven as an incompetent reader and to move past his turn as reader

as quickly as possible. This socially organized movement was based not on Steven‟s

inability to read Stone Fox, since he was not given the opportunity or cooperation from

his reading group that would have allowed him to demonstrate his reading ability. Rather,

he was repeatedly interrupted, assisted or mocked in ways that colluded to prevent him

265

from reading. The members of his group responded to his turn in ways that were different

from the ways that they responded when other group members were given a turn to read.

This cooperative social action on the part of the group members appeared to have been

based on their expectations of Steven as a reader and group (non)participant. The

classmates had developed a history of interactions with each other that had resulted in

differential treatment of Steven based on the common knowledge that he was a struggling

reader.

There is additional evidence that the collective memories resulted in certain

students taking up perspectives about themselves in relation to reading. The case of

Michelle and Julie‟s reading group is insightful. As commented upon in the previous

segment, even though reading assessment tests indicated that Julie and Michelle

functioned academically at a similar level, Michelle had taken up a perspective of herself

as a poor reader, while Julie considered herself a good reader. Their social relations

within the reading group reflected the girls‟ self-perceptions related to their reading

abilities, and had consequences for how the teacher and other students viewed them. Julie

conveyed a sense of confidence and ability, expressed in the ways that she took the

initiative to correct her friend‟s reading mistakes. In an interview with Julie, she

expressed confidence in her ability to understand texts, even though her understandings

were flawed:

1. Researcher: Okay, so you‟re a good reader?

2. Julie: Yeah.

3. Researcher: Okay, what makes you a good reader?...

266

4. Julie: I don‟t know. I just get a lot of words, like I just know a lot

of words for some reason…

5. Researcher: What did you do with this? What was your

assignment?

6. Julie: Well, you read the story and then you answer these five

questions in the book. About the xxxx story, like answer questions

they ask you. And then we turn that in.

7. Researcher: Is this reading easy or hard or kind of medium for

you?

8. Julie: It was:: easy because we had gone over all this stuff, like a

long time ago and so:

9. Researcher: So you went over the stuff that‟s in the book already?

Words, or??

10. Julie: Umm, vocabulary words that we already learned like fay-

min and stuff and we go over all the//

11. Researcher: // famine?

12. Julie: Yeah. We go over them before we start our book in our

reading book then the words are in here so they‟re easy...

13. Researcher: Okay, so let‟s look at some of the vocabulary. There

are some hard ones right on the first page, so let me ask you about

those. You mentioned the word “famine”…um it says...

14. Julie: plentiful

15. Researcher: Yeah, I was going to ask you that one too. It says,

“When the crops were plentiful they had food to eat. Now there

was a famine so they went to bed hungry at night.” So what do

famine and plentiful mean?

16. Julie: Plentiful means very little and then famine means like where

you don‟t get much to eat – basically you‟re kind of starving and

something.

267

On the other hand, Michelle lacked confidence in her reading abilities, even though her

performance in many cases (such as the Science Review Game) demonstrated her strong

content knowledge. Because of the self-image that Julie and Michelle had developed over

time and the subject positions they had taken up or resisted, the reading group became a

venue where Julie negotiated and furthered her position of superiority over Michelle. The

rest of the group apparently accepted this social arrangement as natural, since none of

them intervened or showed interest in the social negotiations that were being conducted

between the two girls.

Likewise in the Science Review Game, Tess had developed a history as a social

leader and academically strong student. She used her understanding of both her own

social position and the diminished social positions of the three classmates who had been

assigned to her group to publicly represent herself as the only knowledgeable member of

her team. The teacher‟s understanding of this social situation was made public in her

comment to Nico, Michelle and Josh, and thereby to the rest of the classmates as well,

working to further solidify their social position as inferior readers. The social

negotiations were not a coercion by one classmate over another in many cases, but was a

cooperative act in which one or more students took on the role of the superior student(s)

while the other student or students enacted the role of the incompetent or inferior

student(s). The partner reading event between Josh and Tex is an example of this.

Evidence indicates that this hierarchical positioning was a result of many repeated social

negotiations over time, and was solidified through the collective memories that students

developed that considered literacy events to be competitive and of social import with

268

regards to a student‟s social image and self-image. In this way the social position and

self-concept are laminated and expressed through the student‟s habitus.

Timescapes and collective memories, then, served as temporal frameworks from

which the social role of “struggling reader” was defined, and through which students

came to be positioned and enacted that role. At both a macro- and micro-level,

participants‟ conceptions of time structured the field of the classroom in ways that

socially constructed the position of struggling reader as well as allowed for the label and

social consequences to be applied to certain students.

Summary

Analysis of the data from this two-year study has generated three theoretical

constructs related to how middle-childhood students are socially constituted as struggling

readers. First, findings indicate that the way school personnel organize literacy

instruction creates social spaces where students hierarchically position one another in

peer-to-peer interactions. The organization of literacy instruction is based upon

ideological positions related to definitions of reading and what counts as text, and a

particular kind of epistemology that limits knowledge to what is authorized by teachers

and texts. These ideological positions are driven by legally mandated testing. These

assumptions result in ways of organizing reading instruction that promotes particular

kinds of reading practices among students and provides opportunities for students to

construct social hierarchies. As part of that instructional organization, students have

adopted a perspective that good reading is word-for-word, perfectly rendered oral

reading. A great deal of surveillance of literacy activities results in students being

269

hierarchically ranked based upon perceived reading skill. Because some students literacy

abilities do not align with those of the classroom, and because some students are unable

to show what they know because of social relations that exclude them or minimize their

participation, students‟ literacy abilities are sometimes misassessed, unrecognized or

undervalued. Further, the moral obligations that are attached to literacy practices may not

only position a student as a poor reader, but also as morally deficient.

A second construct relates to how a student may take up the social position of

struggling reader that is offered to them in peer interactions based on the organization of

reading instruction. Positioning occurs as an interconnected process with the social field

in which a student is offered the position of struggling reader based upon the hierarchies

of the classroom and they take up and adopt a habitus that fulfills the expectations of that

social position. When confronted with the social positioning in a classroom, some

students act agentively to resist that positioning. However students who become labeled

as struggling reader choose not to or are unable to show agentive action. Instead they

adopt a set of mannerisms and dispositions which communicate that they are struggling

with reading. Through their tones of voice that demonstrate insecurity, acts of

dependence or helplessness and defensive or resistance stances, they demonstrate that

they have taken up on the positioning that was offered as a struggling reader and thereby

reinforce the social distinction. The process recursively spirals over time, where students

become more and more convinced of their inability to meet the reading demands of the

classroom, and the other members of their community take up on that perspective,

270

responding to them in ways that make the inferior social status and their habitus seem

natural.

Finally, conceptions of time are implicated in constituting a struggling reader in

both constructing the category and socially marking a student as a member of the

category. To be considered a good reader, a student not only needs to learn to read, but

needs to learn to read and demonstrate their reading knowledge is ways that are accepted

at school and within a fairly narrow time frame. Issues of pace are used by teachers and

students to make categories of what a good reader is. They are also used to determine

whether or not a student can acquire and perform reading skills fast enough to qualify

them as a good reader. Thus, time boundaries are used to construct the concept of a

struggling reader and to assess and categorize students as a member of the category.

Further, students are constituted as struggling readers over time. As the group of

students and others interact over days, months and years of school, they create a set of

collective memories and develop a narrative related to a student‟s future based on literacy

(dis)ability. With repeated and continual peer interactions that highlight and act upon the

assumption that there is an inferior social position called struggling reader than needs to

be filled, students adopt a negative perspective about certain students and their futures

that is demonstrated in their ways of being in the classroom. Because students bring

collective memories of this arrangement to each interaction, over time assumptions about

certain student‟s (dis)ability and participation becomes naturalized, making the student‟s

habitus relatively durable and impacting their wider relations with members of their

community and their self-esteem.

271

Appendix A

Mapleton Dialect

272

Appalachian English: Mapleton Variety

Margaret Grigorenko

Note: Pseudonyms have been used to maintain the anonymity of the research project.

Whenever possible, conventional spelling was used in language examples, but when

necessary for discussion, transcribing conventions were used based on those presented by

J. Gumperz (1982), Discourse strategies, pp. xi-xii.

Introduction

Mapleton-Rockford Local School District is made up of one K-12 school that

serves the villages of Mapleton (population 4048 in 2004 based upon the U.S. Census

Bureau) and Rockford (pop. 174 in 2004), as well as the surrounding rural townships in

Brown County. With the implementation of state proficiency and achievement tests, the

school district has been involved in ongoing research to improve service to all students,

especially those that are identified in disaggregated data by the state. In this case, two

groups were identified for special focus – low socio-economic status and students with

disabilities. During observations of these students, it was observed that one characteristic

that many of these students share is a non-mainstream speech variety. This paper is a

study of the linguistic variety spoken in the Mapleton and the surrounding Brown County

area, and its impact on local education.

Historical Connections

Written and oral histories of the settlement of Brown County and Mapleton

Township give evidences of patterns that have impacted the current language variety of

273

the area. R.S. Dills, in his History of Brown County, written in 1881, gives evidence that

early European-American settlers of the area were mainly of Scotch-Irish descent and

were descendants of the Covenanters. The earliest group of Covenanters was reported to

have been settlers who migrated primarily from Kentucky, but also from Pennsylvania,

Virginia and Prussia (Dills, 1881, 540-546). A second wave arrived in 1829 and the years

shortly afterward, when a Covenanter pastor in South Carolina, left the South because of

his discontent over the issue of slavery, to settle near his family in Mapleton Township.

“A goodly number of his people in South Carolina followed him, so that in a few years

they formed the major part of the congregation.” (Broadstone, 1918, 504). The group has

maintained a public presence in the town to this day, and the local Presbyterian church is

currently in the process of collecting historical documents in the process of creating a

history of the Covenanters in the community in honor of the church‟s 200th

anniversary in

2009 (Darby interview). Because of these historical connections, certain connections can

be made between the local dialect and the American dialect that has roots in the Scotch-

Irish tradition that has come to be labeled Appalachian English. Montgomery has

completed extensive linguistic research that connects Appalachian English to the

influence of the Scotch-Irish (Montgomery, 1997), thus the historical roots of the

community may explain the existence of Appalachian English in an area that is not

traditionally considered to be a part of Appalachia. The analysis detailed below indicates

that the local dialect shares certain features of the variety of Appalachian English that has

been studied in areas of West Virginia and North Carolina (Montgomery, 1997, 2006;

Wolfram & Schilling-Estes, 2006; Adler, 1993), yet at the same time has distinctive local

274

patterns. The patterns of AE that have been detailed by linguists will serve as a

comparative pattern for the analysis of the Mapleton variety.

Method

Dialect samples were collected in both formal and informal settings. Three

interviews (1 ¼ hour each) were conducted with two men and one woman who are long

time residents of the community. The participants were selected after being

recommended as persons whose families had lived in the county for many generations

and/or who had lived in the community all their lives and had a characteristic local way

of speaking. The participants were asked to share remembrances, histories or stories

about Brown County. The interviews were taped, and selected portions were transcribed

for analysis.

The first participant (pseudonym Dan Lincoln-DL) is an eighth generation

descendant of settlers of Brown County. He has lived all of his life in Brown County with

the exception of the four years he spent obtaining a bachelor‟s degree in Agricultural

Science at a large state university in the state capital. He current operates a farm in the

county and is “in his fifties.”

The second participant (pseudonym Carrie Stewart-CS) is the wife of Dan

Lincoln and has lived in Brown County since the age of two. She has a degree in

Education from a local state university and teaches in a gifted program in a neighboring

school district. She also helps her husband run the family farm, and is in her early fifties.

She was interviewed with her husband.

275

The third participant (pseudonym Robert Darby-RD) has lived all his life in

Brown County in Mapleton Township, and has lived all those years in the same house

with the exception of the first four years of his marriage when he lived in the “tenant

house” on his parent‟s property. He has a degree in Animal Science from the state

university in the state capital and jointly farms 800 acres. He is sixty-six years old.

In addition to the formal interviews, additional examples of local language were

noted by the researcher while making observations at the local public school connected to

a different research study. Informal observations of comments made by school personnel

were also noted. These common patterns were used to supplement or extend certain

patterns that had been observed in the interview data.

The transcribed data was then analyzed according to principles of discourse and

linguistic analysis. (Johnstone, 2008; Gumperz, 1982) The observations from these

analyses were compared with literature that describes the linguistic characteristics of

Appalachian English. (Montgomery, 1997, 2006; Wolfram & Schilling-Estes, 2006;

Adler, 1993)

This study is not intended to be comprehensive, nor to represent all long-time

residents of the area. In the process of identifying participants, it was noted that certain

long-time residents do not speak with a non-mainstream variety, and others use different

forms of non-mainstream Englishes. The particular form that is the focus of this study

represents what local residents at the beauty parlor and coffee shop recognized as

“typical,” making this a type-case analysis. Conventions used in transcripts from the

276

interviews utilize the phonetic and prosodic notations established by Gumperz (1982, pp.

xi-xii)

Linguistic Features of the Mapleton Variety

Pronunciation (Phonological Characteristics)

The shared pronunciations of the three persons that were interviewed fall largely

into categories that are described by linguists in describing AE, but with some particular

local features. Phonological characteristics with examples are listed below (see

transcripts at the end of the paper).

Consonant Omissions

Feature Mainstream

English

Mapleton Dialect Examples

Initial

unstressed

syllable sounds

because

electricity

„cause

„lectricity

RD65 “we would do „em

at our church „cause it

was the largest church”

CS112 “on the switch for

the „lectricity”

Two stop

sounds

exactly

actually

ezackly

ackshully

RD 6 Ackshully, I have

reladives who came

down”

t after ep slept

kept

slep

kep

DL85 “he slep‟ in the

upstairs bedroom”

DL92 “He kep‟ his

pants.”

t after s just jus‟ CS98 “they jus‟ open up”

Final ng hunting

trapping

fishing

huntin‟

trappin‟

fishin‟

DL73 “the Linkholms

were always noted for

huntin‟ an‟ trappin‟ and

fishin‟”

Initial th there

them

„ere

„em

RD16 “There was a

private one that met down

„ere.

RD67 “that‟s right an‟

take „em back”

Final d and

an‟

DL85 “An‟ so he was

rich.”

277

old ol‟ DL 95 “I think Ol‟ Town

Run came out an‟ acrosht

shixty-eight there…Ol‟

Springfield Pike”

Substitutions

Feature Mainstream

English


i/a while

hired

my

whawl

harred

ma

DL64 “once in a whawl”

RD29 “An‟ when we harred

him I „uz on the committee”

CS65 “That‟s ma favret

thing on the river”

a/u program progrum RD65 “We did most of our

programs we would do „em

at our church”

o/a State

narrower

windows

furrow

Ahia

Narraer

Windas

furra

CS 20 “Umm, my dad‟s

from southern Ahia”

DL56 “So they used narraer

places in the gorge.”

DL87 “he had the windas

open”

RD 8 “ackshully plowed the

furra for the first

foundation”

oo/a you

into

to

ya

inta

ta

DL48 “Ya know the

difference?”

DL56 “it went right inta the

rock”

DL 60 “when you needed it

ta turn.”

s/sh sixty

acrost

shixty

acrosht

DL95 “I think Ol‟ Town

Run came on an‟ acrosht

shixyt-eight there.”

By far the most common pronunciation characteristics that are almost universal in the

area are the dropping of the ng at the end of “ing” words, and the vowel shifts from i, oo

and o to a. In talking to people in the area, they do not recognize that there is a dialect,

nor that their pronunciation is non-mainstream.

278

Syntax

From the interviews, a number of local syntax patterns were identified:

Feature Mainstream

English


Pronoun Usage those them („em) DL68 “one of those big

cameras ya know took

one of „em big, long

pictures”

Dropped subject He had his

house locked

Had his house locked DL85 “Had his house

locked.”

Pleonasms -

redundancies

large great big huge DL81 “Pud Linkholm

had these two great‟ big‟

huge‟ straw piles”

Subject

expression

looking to

marry

lookin‟ ta marry you CS117 “you were lookin‟

ta marry you either one of

the Morgan women”

Verb omission

in questions

Do you know Ya know DL48 “Ya know the

difference?”

Sat/set sat set DL54 “They set the

wheel down in the

existing current”

Helping verb

omission

had ever seen

had taken

ever seen

took

DL75 “An‟ nobody ever

seen anything like that”

DL89 Somebody‟d

brought up there and took

a ladder.”

of combinations kind of

a lot of

out of

kinda

alotta

outta

DL8 “the two branches

kinda spread out from

there.”

DL56 “an‟ alotta times it

went right inta the rock”

RD2 “four outta sixty”

to combinations going to

have to

got to

gonna

hafta

gotta

RD56 Gail‟s gonna

represent me over there.”

DL46 “ya hafta

understand”

RD58 “Ya gotta be

careful where you tell

this”

Adverb usage really, very real DL75 “they always

279

wanted to get their crops

done in the fall real

early”

RD 52 “we‟re getting real

close to a building project

Preposition

omission

of course course DL87 “Course this was

summer”

RD19 “An‟ course bein‟

in the school I see the

good things”

You

combinations

you know y‟know RD52 “Back ta school

y‟know, yknow”

Of these patterns, the use of real and them as adjectives, and the combinations of

prepositions with of and to are highly prevalent. The use of set for sat was also noted in

the usage of all three participants.

Vocabulary (Lexical Characteristics)

Feature Mainstream

English


Hand dug water

course

Channel (?) run DL99 “I think they cut

the channel for Ol‟ Town

Run over ta Massie

Creek”

outdoors out-a-doors DL73 “They liked the

out-a-doors”

cash cash money DL83 “cash money”

General all

around term

things stuff DL 105 “I think they

ground grain and stuff

there”

RD56 “saw all the old

equiptment and stuff they

had”

ain‟t isn‟t DL115 “if the mill pond

ain‟t full we caint do

anything.”

280

Prosody Yes

cement‟

ye-uh

ce‟-ment

DL127 “Ye=uh, yep

erected ( ) in…Ye-uh”

RD65 “you‟d put two

ce‟ment block tagether”

Syllable

shortening

interested

usually

favorite

intrusted

ushully

favret

RD33 “She was intrusted

in horses”

RD54 “you ushully only

get one chance”

CS65 “that‟s ma favret

thing on the river”

In the interviews I did not note some of the distinctive vocabulary that is used as a marker

of Appalachian English. Though the local variety matches the pronunciation and syntax

patterns that characterize AE, the vocabulary seems to much more align with mainstream

English.

Another particular characteristic of the three participants was their accentuated

ability and desire to tell stories. This discourse ability seems to be highly valued in the

community, and the three were recommended by local informants for their strong

abilities in storytelling. It was noted that a number of the more distinctive pronunciation

and syntactic features became much more frequent in the portions of the interviews in

which the participants were involved in extended narratives.

Flanigan (2000, 2006) has done extensive research on the South Midland Dialect,

and has described various dialects of Appalachian English. The South Midland dialect

has some features of southern Appalachian speech and Southern American English. She

describes this dialect as a “retention of older forms of speech in a belt running north of

the [State] river through State, Indiana, and Illinois (roughly south of the old Zane‟s

281

Trace and the National Road) [now the I-70 corridor]” (Flanigan, 2006, p. 1030). The

local dialect is part of a sub-category of Appalachian English. Even so, the local speech

of the Mapleton area seems to have taken on a number of distinctive local features,

primarily related to vocabulary.

Implications for Education and Impact on Learning Academic English

The Mapleton variety has many of the pronunciation and syntactical

characteristics of Appalachian English and so it may be assumed that speakers of this

variety will experience a number of the social and educational difficulties that have been

connected to more southern AE speakers.

In general, Appalachian English has negative social connotations for many.

Dennis Preston and Laura Hartley have studied attitudes toward speech patterns and have

reported on Appalachian English.

For all four sets of respondents, the identity category was used almost

exclusively to characterize the speech of the South Midlands (when it was

identified as a separate speech area), usually as „Hillbillies‟ or „Hicks.‟

Only the MI respondents (and a minority at that) seem willing to identify

this region in more neutral terms, such as „Appalachian...‟labels with the

word „hillbilly‟ or „hick‟ predominated for the South Midland, an

interesting division between a straightforward linguistic caricature on the

one hand and an identity or stereotypical person label on the other (e.g.

„Tennessee Kentucky Southern State “Hick” Hillbillies‟).”(Hartley and

Preston, in Bex and Watts, 1999, p. 230, 235).

Hazen and Fluharty, as part of the West Virginia Dialect Project, report on social

perceptions of Appalachian people in general and Appalachian English in particular.

When people speak of Appalachian English, they often treat it as if it has

mad cow disease and needs quarantining. As linguists, we are always

saddened by the negative attention the Appalachian dialect receives. To

us, all dialects are legitimate variations of English; no dialect is more

282

“correct” or “legitimate” than another. Appalachian English, like many

other American dialects, has existed for almost two hundred years and has

developed its own unique vocabulary and grammar.

To regard the Appalachian dialect as deficient is therefore

scientifically incorrect, and it unfairly maligns the entire social group that

speaks it. (Hazen & Fluharty, 2006, p. 18)

Interestingly enough, the participants that were interviewed do not connect their

pronunciation to “hillbilly” speech, which they associate with a different local

community. Carrie commented that the people call the neighboring town “Little

Kentucky” because the people came from the “hollers” of Kentucky, and that they often

had trouble in school. She said that she had had no personal experience with any trouble

with dialect in school, and didn‟t know any local children who had. On the other hand, as

a teacher in the Mapleton schools, I heard teachers make derogatory remarks about the

speech and literacy practices of family members of students, connecting the student‟s

learning difficulties with the speech and literacy patterns of the parents. This serves to

highlight the participant‟s understanding of their own speech patterns as “normal” and

“mainstream” in that they compare their language to that of a more extreme Appalachian

English dialect. The analysis of the speech however, identifies the local speech as part of

AE.

This distinction becomes more apparent when school children are observed.

Because the residents of the village are primarily from three different social groups

(university employees, farmers and working class), the speech patterns of students

entering public school in kindergarten class are quite diverse. However, by third grade,

the speech patterns of all students were observed to be quite homogeneously mainstream

283

English in pronunciation. Thus, either explicitly or implicitly, students were trained to

use mainstream English at school, regardless of the dialect of their homes. There was not

opportunity for me to observe whether the students changed their pronunciation when

they were with their families.

Among the adults in the community, the Mapleton variety is widely used in

speech, especially among long time residents of the county. It serves as one of the

unifying factors of the community and distinguishes the descendents of early settler

families (who call themselves “townies”) from families that are employed by the local

university. “Appalachian English is associated with a rural, stigmatized vernacular at the

same time it may be associated with people‟s sense of cultural identity.” (Wolfram &

Shilling-Estes, 2006, 41.) Thus, the speech patterns that may identify them as rural

Appalachians, also serves as an important social marker in the community. This may

cause certain internal conflicts among students who must use one form of language at

school and yet try to maintain a speech form that connects him or her to their community.

The various social meanings associated with ethnic and regional varieties

of American English often force speakers to choose between fitting in and

speaking correctly. Appalachian English is associated with a rural and

stigmatize vernacular, and at the same time with an individual‟s native

roots. These individuals are faced with the dilemma of choosing between

group solidarity and being stigmatized by the mainstream culture....Failure

to use the vernacular of family may be interpreted as a symbolic rejection

of the family and the inability to fit in (Fasold, 1996; Wolfram &

Schilling-Estes, 1998). Many of these students deliberately choose to

maintain the language, traditions, social behaviors, and culture of their

home. (Powers, 2002, p. 86).

Further, the identified differences between the Mapleton variety and mainstream

English may cause difficulties for students who are required to use standard English for

284

speaking, reading and writing in school. If students write using local syntax, or spell

according to local pronunciations, they may encounter difficulties in producing the

academic English that is required for high grades in the local school and to achieve at an

acceptable level on state achievement and graduation tests. In particular it would be

anticipated that students would have difficulty distinguishing between the vowel sounds i,

oo and o, since a local vowel merger has occurred, resulting in all three being

pronounced as a. In addition, the omission of a number of consonant sounds and

shortening of words is anticipated to cause difficulty in spelling. With regard to grammar,

non-standard verb forms and irregular use of prepositions may cause difficulty in writing

with standard syntax.

Conclusion

From three interviews of long-time Brown County residents, patterns of the local

Mapleton speech variety were examined. The variety demonstrated pronunciation and

syntactic characteristics of Appalachian English, but did not evidence certain vocabulary

that is often used as a marker of AE. Though none of the participants identified their

speech as a hurdle to their education, in other informal observations within the public

school, I have heard remarks made that would indicate that certain features of the local

language, in particular the syntax, is considered to be “broken” English that should be

eliminated as part of the educational process.

The distinctive patterns that were identified may be anticipated to cause difficulty

in the areas of syntax in writing because of irregular verb and preposition usage, and in

spelling because of omitted consonant sounds and vowel mergers.

285

Finally, the speech pattern may be stigmatized in certain social situations because

of its connection to Appalachian English, at least outside the community. Within the

school, the speech pattern is not encouraged, and may even be discredited. Certainly

some students may feel marginalized because of the language of their families, and others

may struggle with tensions between the speech expectations of home and school.

The study was conducted on a very limited population due to limitations on the

time allocated for research, and further interviews would be necessary to establish

linguistic patterns. A wider population in terms of age, occupation and social status

would be necessary in order to describe the local language pattern as normative.

However, this small sample provides an interesting starting point for the further analysis

of the Mapleton and Brown County speech patterns, and provides a number of

possibilities as to educational implications of the dialect and suggested areas that may

need to be addressed in order that students whose home language is the Mapleton variety

may be successful in learning academic English.

REFERENCES

Abramson, R. & Haskell, J. eds. (2006). Encyclopedia of Appalachia. Knoxville: The

University of Tennessee Press.

Adler, S. (1993). Multicultural communication skills in the classroom. Boston: Allyn and

Bacon.

Broadstone, M., ed. (1918). History of [Brown] County [State]: Its people, industries and

institutions. Indianapolis: B.F. Bowen & Co. Inc.

Dill, R. S. (1881). History of [Brown] County, together with historic notes on the

Northwest. Dayton, OH: Odeli & Mayer Publishers.

286

Flanigan, B. (2006). Different ways of talking in the Buckeye state, in Wolfram, W. and

Ward, B. American voices: How dialects differ from coast to coast. Malden, MA:

Blackwell Publishing.

Flanigan, B. (2000). Mapping the State Valley: South Midland, Lower North or

Appalachian?, American Speech, 75 (4), 344. Retrieved Friday, February 23, 2007

from the Communication & Mass Media Complete database.

Flanigan, B.(2006). Upper [State Name] Valley Speech, in Abramson, R. & Haskell, J.

eds. (2006). Encyclopedia of Appalachia. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee

Press.

Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hartley, L. and Preston, D. (1999). The names of US English: Valley girl, cowboy,

Yankee, normal, nasal and ignorant, in Bex, T. and Watts, R. (1999). Standard

English: The widening debate. London: Routledge.

Hazen, K. and Fluharty, E. (2006). Definining Appalachian English in Wolfram,W. &

Ward, B. American voices: How dialects differ from coast to coast. Malden, MA:


Johnstone, B. (2008). Discourse analysis, 2nd

ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Montgomery, M. (2006). Language in Abramson, R. & Haskell, J., eds. Encyclopedia of

Appalachia. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press.

Montgomery, M. (1997). The Scotch-Irish element in Appalachian English: How broad?

How deep? in Blethen, H. and Woods, C. (eds.), Ulster and North America:

Transatlantic perspectives on the Scotch-Irish. Tuscaloosa: The University of

Alabama Press.

Powers, S. (2002). „Real ways of talking‟ and school talking: One Appalachian student‟s

perception of teacher discourse during writing conferences, Reading Horizons, 43,

(2).

Wolfram, W. and Schilling-Estes, N. (2006). American English, 2nd

ed. Malden, MA:


287

Appendix B

Full Transcripts

288

Transcript – Michelle’s Reading Group - Excerpts

Utterance Notes

1.

Teacher: Michelle, read on page 314 for us.

Michelle was raising her

hand and volunteering.

(2:08)

2. Michelle (M): [Reading] xxxxx Grandfather trying

to look on the sunny side of things.

Michelle reads slowly but

fluently. She continues to

2:32

3.

M: They were sitting on the front porch swing

xxxxx

4. Julie (J) (whispering word to Michelle): xxxx

Julie jumped in to correct

Michelle‟s reading error.

She used a whispered

tone and leaned toward

Michelle in a

performance of

surreptitiousness.

5. M: listening to the evening cooing Attempted

correction – still

incorrect

6. J. (whispering to Michelle): choir Julie again whispers

the correct word to

Michelle

7. M: co-er

Second correction

attempt

8. Teacher: choir

Teacher publicly

pronounces the

correct word

9. J: (out loud in an exasperated voice): choir

Julie expressed both her

frustration that Michelle

did not use her cues and

publicly declared that her

attempts to correct

Michelle had been

accurate

289

10. M: That‟s not choir.

Michelle reacts to

correction, responding

because Julie had skipped

the word “evening.” Julie

reached over and pointed

to Michelle‟s book.

Public indication that

Julie interpreted

Michelle‟s negative

reaction to the correction

as a sign of

incompetence. She sought

to redirect Michelle, and

at the same time to

publicly indicate her

superiority in

understanding.

11. Teacher: choir

Teacher repeats

correction from line 8.

Assumed that Michelle

had not heard, or not

understood.

12. M: I said it.

Defended her

reading of “choir.”

13. J: [while pointing at text] listening to the

choir of birds

Publicly read the

passage aloud. She

again skipped the

word “evening.”

14. M: What?

Didn‟t believe the

reading was accurate

(which it wasn‟t) or

didn‟t hear

15. J: [mocking Michelle‟s reading, scrunching her

face and shaking her head no] the co-er of birds?

Expresses disdain

toward Michelle for

the misreading

16. M: Where are you? [leaning over to look in Julie‟s

book]

Expression of confusion

and embarrassment

17. Nico: xxxx

Reading ahead

18. Teacher: [to Nico] We‟re not there yet.

Reprimand to stay with

the public reader

290

19. J: Right here. [reading] sitting on the porch swing

listening to the evening choir of birds.

Pointed to her book, then

correctly read the

passage.

20. Teacher: choir of birds.

Expansion of 8 and

11; cue to proceed

21. M: choir of birds. Aunt Linzy had gone to visit

Mrs. Xxxx. Since she was a v..v.

Repeated end of phrase

and moved on.

22. J: [whispering to Michelle] xxxxxx

Unrequested assistance.

23. Teacher: Vegetarian

Teacher assist

24. M: vegetarian, she had gone to exchange re-sipes

Mispronounced “recipes”

25. Teacher: recipes

Immediate teacher

correction

26. M: recipes [giggling] about how to make xxx

sticks and to make soap, oops

Embarrassed giggle and a

glance to Julie

27. …to make soup from beans. Both girls covered their

faces and giggled for two

seconds. No response

from other students

28. Teacher: Alright, does anyone know what

the word vegetarian means?

All students raise

their hands.

29. Nico: I do.

30. Teacher: You already knew this already.

31. Flirty.

32. Flirty: It means they don‟t eat meat.

33. T: Okay. People who don‟t eat meat.

xxxxx//

34. Nico & Emily:

//vegetable.

35. Nico: Veggies and fruit.

36. Teacher: Okay, they don‟t eat meat.

37. Nico: Baked potatoes.

38. Teacher: Read. Read to us. To Nico

39. Nico: “Come sit Thomas said irritably. Reading from text.

40. That‟s crazy.

41. Tastes pretty good didn‟t it?

291

42. Thomas wriggled xxxx.”

43. What‟s that word? To teacher.

44. Teacher: wriggled.

45. Nico: “wriggled I suppose.

46. Do you want to talk about it Thomas?

47. About what?

48. Now, now, we all know, know about what

to say.

49. I know how difficulty this is…it is xxx for

you.

50. But you don‟t think it could be worse.

51. How well Evelyn”//

52. Teacher: //Ivan.

53. Sx: //Ivan. Overlapping with

Line 52

54. Nico: “How well Ivan doesn‟t bite us

anymore.

55. There‟s that ha ha.

56. After a short slice of s…”

57. Teacher: Silence.

58. Nico: “Silence, grandfather said, your aunt

Linzy has a good dis-po-sition which is

nothing to ha ha about.

59. People are consan”…

60. Teacher: Constantly

61. Nico: constantly xxxx

62. Teacher: xxxxx Quietly speaking to another

student

63. Nico: What?

64. Teacher: Keep reading, Nico. Points at Nico.

65. People are constantly:::

66. Nico: winning?

67. Teacher: Whining.

68. Nico: whining and complaining.

69. Julie: Keep going. Three second delay. Julie

whispering to Nico.

70. Nico: Oh.

71. Michelle: Keep going. Whispering to Nico.

292

72. Nico: “at their, their lot in life. You must

admit your aunt is usually pretty cheerful

and xxxx”

Resumes reading the text.

73. Teacher: Alright.

74. Nico: “What do you mean”// Continuing to read.

75. Teacher: //Stop.

76. Nico: “Xxxx.”// Continuing to read.

77. Teacher: //Nico!

78. Nico: Oh, okay.

79. Teacher: What does the word disposition

mean?

80. Who remembers?

81. Disposition. Three second delay

82. Aunt Linzy had a good disposition.

83. Good disposition.

84. Okay, do you remember what it means? Three second delay.

85. A vocabulary word.

Two second delay.

86. Michelle.

87. Michelle: Um, it means, like

88. Teacher: Nico, turn around.

Three second delay

89. Michelle: like

90. something good. Three second delay

91. Teacher: Okay:: Tex.

92. Tex: “The character of a person; the way

an individual acts.”

Reading from vocabulary

list at the beginning of the

story.

93. Teacher: Yes, the character of a person or

the way an individual acts.

94. So, if somebody had a good disposition,

how would they act?

95. Nico, don‟t talk out.

96. Julie.

97. Julie: Umm:: like:: happy?

98. Mean? Two second delay.

99. I don‟t know.

293

100. Teacher: Happy.

101. Good disposition. Two second delay.

102. Julie: Bad.

103. No.

104. Good.

105. Teacher: Good.

106. Tex. Two second delay.

107. Tex: Have a good personality.

108. Teacher: Have a good personality?

109. How about when someone has a good

personality

110. or a good disposition how will they act? Two second delay.

111. Sx: Huh?

112. Teacher: How about when someone has a

good personality or a good disposition how

will they act?

113. Nico: Nice?

114. Teacher: They‟re a nice person.

115. Yeah, nice.

116. They‟re friendly.

117. They smile.

118. They help people. (7:40)

294

Video Transcript – Steven’s Reading Group

Steven, Ethan, Sam, Stephanie, Annie

Small groups begin: Group of four sitting on chairs in a +arrangement. Ethan across from

Sam. Stephanie across from Stephen.

Assignment from teacher: The students were to read a chapter together from Stone Fox,

then answer the comprehension questions that were posted on the board.


1. Sam: We‟ll do you, then you, then you,

then me around this way.

7:03 Pointing with finger

beginning to his left and

going around the circle.

Sam takes the first turn and

sets the rules for

engagement; He makes a

bid to take control of the

interaction.

2. And so Ethan‟s first. Sitting forward and

pointing across to Ethan

with the book

3. Ethan: Yeah, I‟m first! Leaning forward and

pointing toward Sam.

Intense intonation and

facial expression.

4. Stephanie: It‟s not fair// Addressing Sam and

turning toward him with

grimace

5. Ethan: //xxxxxx Jumps out of chair and

comments about something

in the book to Ethan,

moving in front of

Stephanie, then sitting back

down while continuing to

talk.

6. Sam: Too bad you‟re sad.

7. Stephanie: C‟mon start reading. To Ethan, but glances at

Sam. Stephanie redirects

boys to the task. She takes

charge and gives a

command.

295

8. Sam: Yeah, start reading Ethan. To Ethan;

9. You read first. Ethan begins reading to

himself, silently. Sam

repeats Stephanie‟s

command, seeking to place

himself as the director of

the group.

10. Stephanie: No out loud. You need to read it. Clarifies directions. Takes

the role of organizer.

11. Sam: Okay, let‟s go on to Stephanie. Bid to take away Ethan‟s

turn.

12. Ethan: No, I‟ll read. Researcher moves through

group to place the digital

audio recorder.

13. That‟s what I was waitin‟ on. Ethan points to the

recorder

14. Sam: Okay, you read first Stephanie. Annie moves into the

group and sits on the ledge

near the recorder.

15. Ethan: Don‟t touch that.

16. Sam: Do not! Annie looks at recorders.

17. Ethan: It‟s a blowing up device.

18. Sam: Yeah, do not touch!

19. Stephanie: xxxxx Begins reading chapter and

continues from 8:23-9:22.

Annie and Stephen look at

books. Sam and Ethan play

with books

20. Ethan: //xxxxx Pointing toward Stephanie

21. Annie: //shhhhh Looking at Ethan.

22. Stephanie: “Who are you? Clifford…” Reading from text

23. Annie and

Sam in

unison:

Snider.

24. Sam: It‟s Clifford Snider// Stephanie prepares to read

again.

296

25. Annie: I thought we were going around. Annie gestures in opposite

direction from Sam‟s

directions (which would

place her as next reader.)

26. I thought we were going around

27. Sam: It‟s Snider.

28. Stephanie: “xxxx” Resumes reading.Sam

slides chair around facing

away from Stephanie.

29. Sam: I was reading

30. Stephanie: I do! I do! I was xxxx Pointing to book and

showing it to Sam.

Grimaces with annoyance.

31. Steven: Is it my turn?

32. Sam: You just skipped me.

33. “xxxxx” [Sam begins reading 10:00-

10:59]

34. Stephanie: No::: Turning toward Sam.

35. Sam: xxxxx To Stephanie.

36. Stephanie: Oh I just said it.

37. Ethan: It‟s my turn=it‟s Stevie‟s turn. Pointing to Steven and

touching him on the chest.

38. Sam: Oh, special you, special you. To Stephanie with a

sarcastic tone.

39. Ethan: It‟s Steven‟s turn. Pointing with his book.

40. Right here where it says xxxx Pointing to place in

Steven‟s book Publicly

declared expectation that

Steven would not know

where to begin reading

41. Sam: Aren‟t you special Steven. Spoken in a mocking tone.

Sam apparently is resentful

that Ethan has declared a

change of reader from Sam

to Steven.

42. Annie: You‟re not even reading Steven. Impatient tone. Steven has

hesitated to begin because

of Sam‟s mocking

43. Steven: “xxxxxx” Steven starts reading

quietly.

297

44. Sam: //Special, special// Overlapping with Steven‟s

reading

45. Annie: //I can‟t

hear you.

Overlapping both Steven

and Sam

46. Ethan: Don‟t touch. Ignoring or unaware that

Steven is reading.

Pointing to the digital

recorder. Steven stops

reading and looks at Ethan.

47. Sam: If you touch it you‟ll blow up the

whole xxxx

Redirecting attention from

Steven to Ethan.

48. Ethan: Plus two more states.

49. Stephanie: xxxx no!

50. Sam: No! Mocking Stephanie.

51. Steven: “xxxxx”// Begins reading quietly.

52. Annie: //Did you read it? Interrupting reading.

53. Ethan: Yeah, he read it on his own

perfectly.

Defending his friend‟s

reading. Ethan was sitting

close to Steven, so may

have been the only one that

could hear the reading.

54. Annie: I can‟t hear him. Impatient tone.

55. Stephanie: Okay, start reading. (12:01) Didn‟t recognize

that Steven had been

reading because she had

been carrying on a

conversation with Sam

about blowing things up.

Took control of the group

by giving command to start

reading. She and Sam had

continually vied for the

right to direct the group.

56. Sam: It‟s my turn. Makes a bid for a second

turn

57. Ethan: You already read. Denies Sam‟s bid.

298

58. Stephanie: Yeah it was xxxx/ Defends Ethan‟s statement

and denies Sam‟s bid. Also

part of the ongoing power

struggle with Sam over

being group leader.

59. Ethan: We‟re on this page. Seeks to direct group to

reading.

60. Where are we? Confused as to where

Steven had read.

61. Annie: We‟re on this page, right here on

this page.

Pointing to the book and

showing Ethan.

62. Steven: “xxxxx” Begins reading for 4

seconds. Stephanie begins

quietly reading out loud

along with Steven to

prompt his reading.

63. Ethan: // Hey how come she‟s

reading?

Interrupts Steven. Steven

stops reading. Pointing to

Stephanie. Questioning

Stephanie‟s right to be

reading.

64. Stephanie: Who? Implicit denial of Ethan‟s

charge

65. Sam: You read it. Pointing to Ethan. Ethan is

next reader in the lineup.

Sam made a bid to move

reading past Steven to the

next reader.

66. I can‟t find my part.

67. Stephanie: “it was just getting harder and his

face turned read.

Reading from text. Turned

gaze and waved her book

mark at Steven. Ignores

Sam‟s bid to move the

reading to Ethan and seeks

to redirect reading to

Steven. She may also be

justifying her previous

quiet reading with Steven.

299

68. Now you read it.

69. That‟s where are.

70. Steven: “Little Willie, Little Willie” These four words are the

only ones that Steven read

with enough volume to be

heard on the tape.

71. you read it. After four words, he stops

and offers his turn to Ethan

(who is the next person in

the circle)

72. Ethan: I‟ll read// Uptake on Steven‟s offer.

73. Sam: //Where are w-Ethan,

you‟re gonna break the book.

In loud voice. Pointing at

Ethan who has turned the

binding on the book back.

74. You‟re gonna break it.

75. You‟re gonna break it.

76. Annie: Just read it. Just read it! Exasperated voice.

77. Ethan: It‟s Steven‟s. Makes an effort to give

Steven his assigned turn.

Request for group approval

for change of turn?

78. Annie: He just read. Declares Steven‟s turn to

be finished.

79. Ethan: Then it‟s my turn. Takes up on offered turn

and prepares to read.

80. Annie: Then read::: Exasperated voice.

81. Ethan: I can‟t find where we are.

82. Annie: We‟re right::: Look. Gets up and moves around

Ethan to point at the book.

83. Ethan: “xxxxx”// Begins reading. Reads

13:17-14:42

84. Stephanie: //Combing. Correcting Ethan‟s

decoding error.

85. Sam: Combing. Repeats Stephanie‟s

correction. Competition

continues for control

between Stephanie and

300

Sam. Stephanie shoots Sam

a dirty look.

86. Ethan: Combing his… Resumes reading to 14:44

87. Sam: Like he did everything. xxxxx

88. Annie: Then next - me.

“xxxx…warring”//

Annie begins reading at

this pause.Reads 14:53-

15:03

89. Stephanie:

//warning.

Corrects Annie‟s decoding

error!

90. Annie: Warring// Repeated error (line 77)

91. Stephanie: //Warning!

92. Annie: “Warning you…we do, do we.”.// Continues reading to

15:42.

93. Sam: //use

some money

94. Annie: “use some money….Little Willie,

Mr. Snider asked…Texas”

95. Sam: xxx Sam and Stephanie are

playing footsie under the

chairs

96. Stephanie: Taxes.

97. Sam: It‟s taxes not Texas.

98. Annie: “xxxxx”// Resumes reading.

99. Sam: xxxxx I know it‟s taxes Sub-rosa

100. Stephanie: xxxxx Sub-rosa speaking to Sam

101. Sam: I know it‟s taxes. Why are you

saying Texas?

Sub-rosa

102. xxxxxx Sam to Stephanie sub-rosa.

Leaning toward Stephanie

and pointing at book.

103. Annie: “it must be some….” Reading text.

104. Stephanie: mistake. assisting

105. Annie: “mistake. It is true.”

106. Sam: Is it true. correcting

107. Annie: I said that. Resumes reading to 16:56.

108. Stephanie: “xxxxx” Reads from 16:56 to 17:58.

Picks up reading without

comment and no pause.

While she is reading Annie

leaves and returns to the

group. At the end, Sam

starts smacking his chair.

301

109. Sam: Okay, now it‟s my turn.

110. Ethan: Just read::

111. Sam: Fine!

112. Stephanie: Read! Exasperated tone. She

turns, grabs Sam‟s book

and points to the place to

begin reading.

113. Annie: Don‟ yell.

114. Behave, just look behind you. Pointing out the video

camera.

115. Look behind you.

116. Sam: xxxx, so

117. Annie: xxx

118. Ethan: Yeah and the police will catch

you.

119. Annie: And xxxx you too.

120. Ethan: I‟m being good and I‟m not

yelling like xxxxx.

121. Annie: Yes you are.

122. Ethan: Well, I‟m not being a bad boy.

123. Annie: xxxxx

124. Sam: “There were so many//” Begins reading text.

125. Many

voices:

Not there! You‟re on the wrong

page

Ethan and Stephanie point

to the book to show Sam.

126. Annie: “Little Willie looked at//” Reading text.

127. Sam: //I already

read that.

Sam resumes reading after

comment.

128. Stephanie: We already looked at that. correcting

129. Sam: Yeah::: Exaggerated voice. Sam

continues reading

130. Teacher: xxxxxx Comes up to group and has

whispered conversation

with Steven.

131. Sam, you‟ve got to scoot in

closer here so everybody in your

group can hear you.

Sam and whole group

move closer together.

132. I‟m sitting over here and I cannot

hear you.

133. So it‟s hard for everybody to

hear, okay.

134. Xxxxx, scoot your chair in.

302

135. If someone , if you guys can‟t

hear somebody you need to tell

them so they‟ll know.

136. Okay, why don‟t you start , where

are you Sam?

137. Sam: “xxxx” Resumes reading text to

the end of the chapter.

138. Teacher: Boys and girls, next time you

come to your groups remember to

bring your packet so you don‟t

have to go back and get it and

then come back again

139. Okay because you have xx

vocabulary words that you need to

find the definitions for.

140. And then questions you need to

discuss.

141. The question‟s on the board. Question on board: Which

character would you like to

be in Stone Fox and why?

[students leave to retrieve

packets and return 20:40-

21:40

142. Sam: This is the blowing up device=it‟s

cool

Ethan returns, then Steven

returns

143. Annie: Ethan, xxxx Annie returns

144. Sam: Don‟t touch it. Sam returns

145. Ethan: It will blow up in 45 seconds.

146. Sam: This is a picture that‟s all:: evil

147. Ethan: Here‟s a picture of a dog Gets out of chair and

moves toward Sam waving

his paper. Sam gets up and

leaves group

148. Annie: xxxx to see that time.

149. Ethan: Hey we‟re on TV

150. You like TVs? To Annie. She shakes her

head yes.

151. I like TV Ethan leaves group

152. Annie I need To Stephanie

303

153. Okay Annie gets up and leaves

the group, then Stephanie

gets up and leaves the

group

154. Students commenting and playing

for the camera 22:00-22:26

Annie returns. Then Sam

and Stephanie return. The

Ethan

155. Ethan: Okay guys scoot up like she said. Video playing continues

until teacher comes up to

group at 23:02

156. Teacher: It‟s on page 26.

157. Sam: Sweet. We‟ve read a lot of pages.

158. Ethan: We read thirty thousand. We read

thirty thousand.

159. Annie: Which word are we doing?

160. Ethan: thirty thousand or thirty one.

161. Sam: This chair is awful. I‟ll just sit

down here.

Gets out of his chair and

sits on the floor.

162. Ethan: Then nobody can see us. Gets out of seat also and

sits on the floor.

163. Sam: Those chairs are annoying.

164. Annie: xxxxx To Stephanie

165. Stephanie: It‟s on page 26,

166. It‟s on page 26 and it‟s “lunged”

167. Annie: Are we on this page? Moving into circle and

showing Stephanie her

notebook page. Steven

rises out of chair to see

which page Annie is

showing.

168. Is this the page?

169. Ethan: One‟s on page 2-6 Ethan gets up and moves

around to the back of his

chair. Steven gets out of

chair and sits on the floor

beside Sam.

170. Annie: Get in here

171. Stephanie: xxxxx

172. Annie: And what?

304

173. Stephanie: xxxxxx

174. Sam: xxxxxx To Stephanie. Does not

respond

175. Where are you?

176. On page 30, on page 30 Al l other students are

writing in their notebooks

177. Ethan: Skip, skip, skip, I want to skip.

178. Sam: I‟m tired of xxxx

179. Stephanie: It‟s on 47

180. Sam: I see it, I see it -It‟s right down

here.

Pointing to book and

showing it to Stephanie

181. Stephanie: It‟s a type of gun [Looking for the

vocabulary word

“derringer.”] Starts writing

in notebook

182. Annie: A type of what?

183. Stephanie: A type of gun Writing

184. Sam: A type-I already knew it was a

type of gun.

185. Stephanie: So did I, but Bossy voice.

186. Ethan: A type of guns …. Ethan jumps up on his

knees and points at

Stephanie.

187. Sam: Girls don‟t know what types of

guns are

188. Stephanie: Yes we do,

189. Ethan: Then what‟s a sniper, what‟s a

sniper?

To Stephanie. She doesn‟t

respond so he goes back

down and continues

writing.

190. Annie: There.

191. Stephanie: xxxxxx

192. Ethan: What‟s a sniper? Goes back up on knees,

pointing at Stephanie.

193. What‟s a sniper?

194. Stephanie: It‟s a xxxxx

195. Sam: What‟d you say sniper was?

196. Stephanie: It‟s just somebody who has guns

like a guard person who xxxx

Gesturing with arms

moving up and down.

197. Annie: Oh, xxxxx

198. Sam: Oooo what is: that? Pointing on something on

the floor.

305

199. Everything xxxxx

200. Xxxxx like when I broke my leg

201. Annie: That‟s not broken.

202. You didn‟t break your leg.

203. Sam: Yes I did too break my leg in first

grade.

Pointing to Ethan and

gazing toward him to get

affirmation.

204. Ethan: I broke my arm in preschool.

205. Stephanie: My dad xxxxxxxxx Pointing to face and

moving finger up the right

side.

206. Annie: Page 47

207. Sam: I took my book back.

208. Annie: Page 47.

209. Stephanie: My mom

210. Annie Page 47

211. Guys, we have to get to work. Stephen turns back to the

group.

212. Ethan: Where‟s the book?

213. Annie: Argh:::

214. Ethan: Is this the book?

215. Annie: We are we havent‟ done the//

216. Stephanie: //We

just have to answer these

questions//

Looking at the board

217. Sam: //We still have

the questions

218. Annie: We still have to answer these two

questions.

To Stephanie. Pointing at

notebook.

219. Stephanie: No::, the one on the board.// Pointing to board and

looking toward it.

220. Sam: //It‟s in

the journal on the sideline.

221. Stephanie: “Which character would you like

to be in Stone Fox and why?”

Reading from the board.

222. Annie: I want to be Searchlight//

223. Sam: // I want to be

Searchlight//

224. Stephanie: //Searchlight//

225. Annie: //I‟m

Searchlight//

306

226. Sam:

//I‟m Searchlight

[Searchlight is a sled dog

in the story]

227. Stephanie: We all want to be Searchlight, and

why: do we want to be

Searchlight?

228. Ethan: I‟ll be Willie, cause I‟m little.

229. Stephanie: Why xxx Steven turns around and

reenters group.

230. Sam: Because.

231. Annie: Why do you guys want to be

Searchlight?

232. She‟s a girl.

233. Sam: No she is not.

234. Annie: Yeah, it is.

235. Sam: No she‟s not

236. Ethan: xxxx The teacher approaches the

group.

237. Annie: Was Searchlight a boy or a girl?

238. Teacher: Is that important to you in

deciding that you want to be

Searchlight?

239. Annie: Yeah.

240. Teacher: You know they don‟t really say

specifically

241. Stephanie: But they said she when xxxx

242. Teacher: Does it matter?

243. Annie: She said, it said she::

244. Sam: Well, xxxx

245. Teacher: On page 20 it does say she.

246. It says, Willie had thought xxx

stonger

247. Xxxx she xxx herself.

248. You‟re right, so Searchlight was a

girl.

249. Annie: Yeah, so Giving a big smile to

Stephanie.

250. Teacher: Does that make a difference in the

character you choose?

251. Sam: But I want to be Searchlight

because xxxxx

307

252. Teacher: You know what, you can choose

to be whichever character you

want.

253. Ethan: I‟ll be little Willie. Jumping up and down.

254. Teacher: But remember to tell why you

want to be that character

255. What makes you want to be

xxxxx

256. Sam: Where‟d we put that plain chair

xxx

To teacher. Teacher moves

away. Stephen sits down

on chair.

257. Annie: I want to be Searchlight because I

can run fast.

258. Ethan: Uh uh (negative). I‟m faster than

you.

259. I‟m faster than both of you// Pointing to Annie and

Stephanie

260. Annie: I want to be Searchlight xxx To Stephanie, ignoring

Ethan.

261. Stephanie: xxxxxxxx

262. Ethan: I want to be Searchlight because

263. Annie: That does not make sense. To Stephanie, ignoring

Ethan. Steven approaches

girls.

264. Ethan: I want to be Searchlight because I

can run fast.

265. Annie: xxxxxxxxxxx To Stephanie, still ignoring

Ethan.

266. Ethan: I‟ll race you too.

267. Annie: xxxxxxxxx To Stephanie. Annie leaves

the group with a small,

never acknowledging

Ethan.

268. Ethan: I‟ll race both of you, yeah. Stephanie and Ethan leave

group. Steven stays for a

moment gazing at the

video machine.

308

Video Transcript – Josh and Tex Partner Reading


1. Teacher: You can decide how you want to go

back and forth

Gives students some

flexibility

2. But I don’t want just one person

doing all the reading.

Establishes guidelines for

an egalitarian participation

structure

3. Okay, and the other person doing all

the listening.

4. Okay, you can go paragraph by

paragraph:

Suggested format

5. You can do one person read one

page and the next person read the

next page:

6. If you want – I don‟t care how you

divide it as long as you‟re both

reading about the same amount.

7. Yes Miss Tess.

8. Tess: Are you going to xxxxx?

9. Teacher: Yes ma‟am.

10. Okay, so

11. When – the first thing you‟re going

to do is read Chapter 7 together.

Statement not command.

Stage 1 of assignment.

12. You‟re gonna read it out loud and:

13. I‟ll be coming around to listen to

several of you read.

14. Okay?

15. But remember you don‟t need to

read loud enough for the entire

class to hear you.

16. You only need to read loud enough

for your partner to hear you.

17. So if you are in chairs, your chairs

need to be close together so your

heads will be close together so you

won‟t have to read exceptionally

loud.

18. If you‟re on the floor that‟s fine.

309

19. But again you need to sit close

together.

20. Have your heads close together so

you can read without being too

loud.

21. Nobody can be under a desk or

under the table.

22. Okay?

23. Okay, after you get done reading

your Chapter 7 in pairs, you‟re

going to go back to your seats

Stage 2 of assignment.

24. You can work on your chapter 7

comprehension questions together

Emphasis on cooperative

nature of activity

25. Okay.

26. You both need to write down the

answers in chapter 7 but you may

do them together.

Repeat of line 24

27. There‟s one section where it talks

about drawing a picture of some

flowers.

Stage 3 assignment

28. „Cause this chapter again will

mention a lot of types of flowers

that they saw.

29. Shadow, is it really important to

have your pencil doing gymnastics

while we‟re talkin‟?

Turns to face Shadow

30. So that, do that when there‟s a

computer available

Turns back to whole class.

31. But you and your partner will have

one computer for the both of you.

32. You don‟t both need to be on a

computer.

33. Okay.

34. One computer for both of you= Repeated from line 31.

35. =After you get done with that I

want you to go ahead and look at

the vocabulary=

Stage 4 assignment

36. =There‟s only five more vocabulary

words left in the rest of the book.

37. Okay for chapter 8 and 9.

310

38. My goal is to finish the book by

Friday,

39. and hopefully you can start your

end of the book projects by Friday

40. and then next week we‟re actually

going to be able to watch the

movie.

41. Sxs: xxxxx Lots of students speaking

at once.

42. Teacher: I know some of you went to girl‟s

night out and watched the movie

and ate chocolate and all kinds of

good stuff but xxxxx

43. Sxs: xxxxxx Overlapping teacher with

many students talking at

once.

44. Teacher: The end of the book project is at the

end of your journal, honey.

Speaking to unidentified

student.

45. There are four to choose from.

46. Okay?

47. They will be 25 points out of the

100 points for this, okay?

48. Sx: xxxxx

49. Teacher: What?

50. Tess: It was a very good movie.

51. Teacher: Maybe it was a different version

because there are several different

versions of Sarah, Plain and Tall.

52. Xxxxx. I shouldn‟t say several.

53. Okay, what are you going to do

first?

54. Nico:

55. Nico: Oh, you‟re gonna read the book.

56. Teacher: What part?

57. Nico: Umm:: can‟t remember.

58. Four?

59. Teacher: Try again.

60. Nico: Five?

61. Teacher: Try again.

62. Nico: Seven.

63. Teacher: Very good.

311

64. Thank you for helpin‟ everyone

figure that out.

65. „Kay, you‟re gonna read chapter 7

first with your partner.

Writes on whiteboard:

“Read Ch. 7 with partner”

66. What are you gonna do next,

Arthur?

67. Arthur: Do the packet?

68. Teacher: Okay good.

69. You‟re gonna do your

comprehension questions by

yourself or with a partner?

70. Arthur: Partner.

71. Teacher: Okay do your chapters

7…comprehension

Writing on whiteboard:

“Do Ch. 7 comp. questions

with partner

72. I know that‟s not the whole thing

but it‟s there anyway=

73. Comprehension questions…

74. With your partner

75. What are you gonna do after that,

Hanna?

76. Hanna: I don‟t remember what was next. Six second delay before

speaking

77. Teacher: Okay, Bam, do you remember?

78. Bam: Do your vocabulary.

79. Teacher: Okay work on your

vocabulary=what chapters?

80. What chapters do we have left? Seven second delay

81. What? We‟ve done through seven. Seven second delay

82. Sx: Seven? Three second delay.

83. Teacher: What?

84. Sx: Seven?

85. Teacher: We‟ve already done seven.

86. Find the right page and find the

right information=go back to page

Five second delay.

87. Okay, look at your vocabulary

pages=we‟ve already done through

seven.

Three second delay.

88. What chapters do we have left to

do?

312

89. Sx: Eight and nine.

90. Teacher: Okay so do your chapters eight and

nine vocabulary

91. There‟s only five words left.

92. Okay? I would like you to do this

one on your own.

93. Okay, are there any questions about

what you‟re to do?

Four second delay

94. Okay, let me put you in partners

then please.

Partners selected on the fly

– no plan designed.

95. I would like Nick and Keith to be

partners.

Chooses boys first.

Proximity seems to play

role in who gets paired.

96. I would like for: Robbie and Arthur

to be partners.

97. I would like for Andy and Nico to

be partners.

98. I would like for Tex and Josh to be

partners.

99. I would like for Cobra, Bam and

Shadow – all three of you to work

together.

100. I have all the boys taken care of,

correct?

Divides boys with boys

and girls with girls.

101. Okay, I would like for//

102. Sx: //xxxx

103. Teacher: xxxxx honey, he xxxxxx. Speaking quietly to

student.

104. I would like for Hanna and Sally to

be partners.

Resumes loud voice.

105. Shadow, I‟m tellin‟ ya, I‟m givin‟

your name to Mr. McMurray and

sayin‟ put that kid on a drum next

year.

Aside to Shadow.

106. Umm: I would like for Rachel and

Emily to be partners.

107. I would like for Flirty and Michelle

to be partners and Julie and Tess to

be partners.

108. Okay, do I have everybody taken

care of now?

313

109. Okay, find a place to sit not under a

desk, not under a table, not too

close to another group, okay?

110. Shadow, you did not take the hint.

111. This is not music.

112. That is next year.

113. Fifth grade, okay?

114. Alright, get with your partners.

115. Find where you want to work and

then quietly and quickly get to

work.

116. Researcher: I‟m going to put this right here so I

can hear.

Redirected video camera to

observe Josh and Tex.

Placed audio recorder

between them on the floor.

117. In the hubbub of everyone else

talking.

118. Tex: Do you want to read the first

paragraph?

Tex uses politeness move

by offering Josh the first

turn.

119. Josh: What page‟s it on? Josh‟s reply indicates his

lack of knowledge of

teacher‟s directions

(though they were repeated

twice).

120. Tex: Thirty-eight.

121. Do you want to read first? Tex establishes egalitarian

relationship in offer.

122. Josh: Okay. Josh assents to proposed

relation of taking turns.

Josh reads the entire first

page.

123. “We‟re hopin‟ the [2 sec] neighbors

[2 sec] Matthew and Maggie came

to help..

Reading from text page 38.

124. Papa plow [2 sec.] a new…plow up

a new field for xxx.

Reading is disfluent with

hesitations and slow rate.

125. Then Sarah sat with us on the porch

watching their wagon pull..

Tex is following text with

eyes.

314

126. Xxxx two horses pulling a..two

horses pulling it. [ 3 sec]

127. and one tied in the back..

128. I remembered [2 sec.] the last time

[4 sec.] we had [2 sec.] sat here on

Disregards punctuation.

129. Caleb and I waiting for Sarah

130. Sarah‟s [2 sec.] hair

was..in..thick..braids…that cir-cled

[2 sec.] that circled…her head.

131. Wild daisies…tucked…here and

there Papa [2 sec.] picked them for

her.

132. Old Bess and Jack ran along…the

outside of the fence…looking at

them…the new horses.”

End of page. Josh stops

reading and Tex

immediately begins with a

signal.

133. Tex: “xxxxx” [“Papa needs five

horses…for the big gang plow,

Caleb told Sara. Prairie grass is

hard. Matthew and Maggie came

with their two children and a

sackful of chickens. Maggie

emptied the sack into the yard and

three red Banty chickens clucked

and scattered.”]

Reading page 39. Turns

away from the audio

recorder, but the words in

brackets are what he read.

Good level of fluency

Josh holds book open but

eye gaze is not on the

book.

134. “They‟re for you she told Sarah.

135. For eating.

136. Sarah loved the chickens.

137. She clucked back to them and fed

them grain.

138. The followed her, shuffling and

scratching primly in the dirt.

139. I knew they would not be for

eating.

140. The children were young and

named Rose and Violet after

flowers.

141. They hooted and laughed and

chased the chickens who flew up to

the porch roof.

315

142. And then the dogs, who crept

quietly under the porch.

143. Seal had long ago fled to the barn

to sleep in cool hay.

144. Sarah and Maggie helped hitch the

horses to the plow,

145. then they set up a big table in the

shade of the barn covering it with a

quilt and a kettle of flowers in the

middle.

146. They sat on the porch while Caleb

and Matthew and Papa began their

morning of plowing.

Josh looks at the camera [2

sec.] Tex looks at Josh and

then turns back to the book

and begins to read.

147. I mixed biscuit dough just inside

the door, watching

148. You are lonely, yes? asked Maggie

in her soft voice.

149. Sarah‟s eyes filled with tears.

150. Slowly I stirred the dough.

151. Maggie reached over and took

Sarah‟s hand.

152. I miss the hills of Tennessee

sometimes, she said.

153. Do not miss the hills, Maggie, I

thought.

154. I miss the sea said Sarah.

155. Do not miss the hills. Do not miss

the sea.”

Tex stops reading abruptly.

156. Wait, you‟re sposed to read.

157. Josh: “Sarah‟s eyes filled with tears

slowly.

Repeats from line 149.

Starts reading 4 paragraphs

back – middle of page 40.

Does not start at the

beginning of the page.

158. I...st…stirred the dough.

159. Maggie reached over and took

Sarah‟s hand.

Two second delay.

160. I missed the hills of Tennessee she

said.

161. Do not miss the hills Maggie, I

thought.

316

162. I miss the sea, said Sarah.

163. Do not miss the hills do not miss

the sea.

164. I stirred and stirred the dough. Two second delay.

165. I miss my brother William said

S…said Sarah

166. But I…he is married

167. The house is hers now not mine.

168. Any longer.

169. There are three old aunts who

all…squawk together at dawn I

miss them too.

170. There are always things to miss

everywhere Maggie do not xxxxx

Three second delay

171. No matter where you are Caleb. Two second delay.

172. There are I looked out and saw

Papa and Matthew and Caleb

working [3 sec]

Four second delay.

173. Rose and Violet ran in the field. Three second delay.

174. I felt something that brushed my

leg and I looked down at Nick

wagging his tail.”

175. Josh: It‟s your turn. Josh is laying on the floor

with his feet toward Tex.

End of page 40; - Josh

stops reading– moves book

away from his face and

lifts his head off the floor

to speak to Tex

176. Tex: You can read the paragraph on this

page because I read part of yours.

177. Josh: What? Josh sits up to hear Tex.

178. Tex: You can read the paragraph on this

page because I read part of yours.

Repeats line 176.

179. Josh: “Sarah xxx I would miss you I

whispered I would miss

Begins reading again.

180. I would [2 sec.] I…knelt down and

scratched his ears.

Two second delay.

181. Miss Momma I nearly forgot said

Maggie on the porch.

182. I have something more for you.

317

183. I cried…I carried the

bowl…outside…and watched

Maggie lift a…low wooden box out

of the box.”

Josh read 7 lines of page

41. Stops reading and looks

at Tex.

184. Tex: “Plants she said to Sarah Finishing page 41.

185. For your garden=my garden?

186. Sarah bent down to touch the

plants.

187. And marigolds and a wild feverfew

said Maggie

188. You must have a garden wherever

you are said Maggie

189. Sarah said I have a garden in Maine

with…

190. dallies and…columbine and

natrrishums the shade of the sun

when it sets.

191. I don‟t know if nast…rushums

would grow here.

192. Try said Maggie

193. You must have a garden.

194. We planted flowers by the porch

turning over the sail and patting it

around them and watering.

195. Lottie and Nick came to sniff, and

the chickens walked in the dirt

leaving prints.

End of page 41.

196. Josh: In the fields…in the field…xxx the

horses pulled the plow up and down

under the hot sun.

Reading page 42. Three

second delay. Josh is

following the reading with

his eyes and begins to read

without any cues or eye

contact. Tex starts looking

at other students – not

following the book with his

eyes.

197. Maggie wiped her

face…leaving…a streak of//”

318

198. Tex: //He

cannot fix anything::! He says that

all the time and I keep telling him

not.

Tex interrupts Josh‟s

reading with an aside to

another student. Josh stops

reading abruptly and looks

at Tes. Then Tex reorients

his body toward Josh.

199. Josh: “Maggie wiped her face leaving

a…stre…

Josh restarts reading.

200. Soon you can drive the wagon over

to my house and I will give you

more.

Josh‟s reading becomes

more fluent – smoother

phrasing and some use of

punctuation.

201. Sarah frowned I have…never

driven a wagon.

202. I can teach you said Maggie and so

can Anna and Caleb and Jacob. [2

sec.]

203. Sarah turned to me can you she said

can you drive a wagon?

204. I nodded Caleb yes.

205. In Maine said Sarah I would…walk

to town.

206. Here it is different said Maggie.

207. Here you will drive way off in the

sky clouds gathered Matthew and

Papa and Caleb in the field their

work wagon [2 sec.]

208. Their work wagon [2 sec.] their

work wagon all ate [2 sec.] we all

ate in the shade.

Tex turns eye gaze to other

student- not book.

209. We are all glad you‟re here said

Matthew to Sarah”

Bottom of page 42 plus one

word.

210. You read now? (17:32) Offers turn to Tex

– politeness move.

211. Tex: “Maggie missed her friends at first. Reading page 43.

212. Sarah nodded.

213. There is always something to miss

no matter where you are she said

smiling at Maggie.

319

214. Rose and Violet fell asleep in the

grass, their bellies full of wheat and

grains and biscuit.

Josh lays down on the floor

with his feet toward Tex

surreptitiously pulling

candy from his hoodie and

eating them while Tex

reads.

215. And when it was time to go, Papa

and Matthew lifted them into the

wagon to sleep on blankets.

216. Sarah walked slowly behind the

wagon for a long time waving and

watching it disappear.

217. Caleb and I ran to Sarah to bring

her back the chickens running

wildly behind us.

218. We shall…what shall we name

them? asked Sarah laughing as the

chickens followed us into the

house.

219. I smiled.

220. I was right.

221. The chickens would not be for

eating.

222. And then Papa came

223. just before the rain

224. bringing Sarah the first roses of the

summer.”

End of page 43.

225. Uhhh:::We‟re done. (18:00)

226. Josh: Is that me? Josh lifts head from floor

toward Tex.

227. Tex: We‟re done.

228. Josh: Sure? Tex nods yes.

229. We‟re done. Repeats Tex‟s words from

227.

230. I‟ll go get my comprehension. Josh gets up from floor and

moves toward his desk.

Josh moves to desk

searching for materials. He

kneels on floor to look in

desk. Tex brings his chair

to Josh‟s desk. After 2

320

minutes Tex leans over and

begins looking in Josh‟s

desk. Time: 18:25-20:34

231. Researcher Oh Josh, I think I saw yours on the

desk.

232. Josh: What? Looking up.

233. Researcher Your packet. Tex moves toward

teacher‟s desk.

234. Teacher: Oh, you know what. It isn‟t Josh‟s

up there. It‟s xxxx‟s. Sorry about

that.

Josh goes to teacher‟s desk.

235. Researcher Sorry.

236. Teacher: You know what Josh, if you can‟t

find it right now,

237. rather than spending a whole lot of

time looking for it get a blank sheet

of paper.

238. Write down the answers that you

and Tex come up with

239. and when you find it you can put it

in there.

240. Okay…just because I don‟t want

you to waste a whole bunch of

time, okay?

Josh nods head yes. Both

boys return to Josh‟s desk.

Tex stands and leans over

to look in the desk.

241. Tex: Ready? Josh sits down. Tex sits

down with packet, book,

pencil and colored pencils.

(21:31)

242. Josh: Where did I put my… Josh gets out of seat and

kneels down to start

digging in his desk again.

Tex leans over to search in

the desk too. Tex points

into desk. Josh pulls out a

mechanical pencil and puts

it on his desk.

243. Tex: xxxxx Josh pulls out a notebook.

Tex starts turning the

notebook pages to find a

blank sheet of paper for

Josh.

321

244. Okay, you can just put number one

and the answer to number one.

Tex leans over Josh‟s

paper and points with his

pencil. Josh gets off his

seat and searches in his

desk again. He takes out

lead for the mechanical

pencil. He gets out a lead

and loads pencil. Tex

reaches over to help by

putting the lid back on the

lead container. (22:27)

245. Josh: Okay.

246. Tex: “Chapter 7 mentions many different

kinds of flowers. Choose two from

the following list and draw pictures

of them.”

Reading from

comprehension packet.

Josh eating candies.

247. Josh: Huh?

248. Tex: We‟re supposed to pick two of

these kinds of flowers.

(23:14)

249. Josh: For what. Josh munching candy.

250. Tex: We:: “Chapter 7 mentions many

different kinds of flowers. Choose

two from the following list and

draw pictures of them. Please use

color.”

False start, then he rereads

the sentence from the

packet. Repeat of line 246.

251. So we choose one of, we choose

two of these and put one in each

box.

Moves pencil back and

forth pointing out boxes

252. Josh: Umm…those and those. Points to two kinds of

flowers on Tex‟s page

253. Tex: Do you want to do

marigolds…cause we know what

marigolds look like.

254. Actually I‟m thinking…

255. A marigold looks like gold. Boys make eye contact.

Tex giggles.

256. Josh: I xxxx Josh begins to color with

yellow pencil on Tex‟s

page. Takes initiative.

257. Tex: Hold on. Stops Josh‟s effort. Tex

reaches over Josh to

colored pencils.

322

258. We need some green. Josh keeps drawing.

259. Josh: not xxxx green. Renegotiating Tex‟s

comment in 258. Pops

candy into mouth.

260. Tex: Can you erase this? Wants Josh to erase what

he drew on his own paper.

Josh nods yes.

261. Hey, this works pretty good. Erasing Josh‟s drawing

(comment refers to eraser).

262. You draw on yours and then I‟ll

copy it.

Pointing to Josh‟s paper.

Renegotiates how the task

will be completed. Does

not want Josh to do work

on his paper.

263. I want to see what you think it

looks like.

Two second delay.

264. I want to see what yours looks like

first and then I‟ll finish it.

Two second delay.

Expansion of 263. Tex

writes on Josh‟s paper.

265. I just want to see what your opinion

looks like.

266. Green and dark green. Five second delay.

267. Sx: It‟s pizza. Tex smiles and scoots

closer to Josh – redirects

gaze to paper. Josh nods

yes. Tex looks at Josh‟s

paper and points toward it.

Josh eating.

268. Tex: The yellow‟s on the top. Tex starts to draw.

269. The yellow goes on the top cause

the yellow‟s the crust.

270. And the red stuff is pepperoni.

271. Josh: And the green is just green.

272. Tex: Alright, so is this your opinion: of

it?

273. Put marigold at the top so she

knows it‟s you know.

Five second delay.

274. Wait, first I have to ask the teacher

a question.

Tex leaves and moves to

teacher.

275. I‟ll be back in just a second.

276. Researcher What happened to your partner

Josh.

Monitoring video camera.

323

277. Josh: He‟s asking something=I don‟t

know what he‟s asking.

Tex returns to desk.

278. Tex: We‟re allowed to use the internet

for…

279. Here‟s, here‟s my book. Tex signals to Josh who

picks up his pencils and

moves toward the

computers. Tex goes

around the desks to his

own desk, collects papers

and colored pencils and

moves to the computer.

Josh sits at Computer #1,

Tex pulls up his chair and

prepares to sit down.

(27:00)

280. Andy: Hey, hey, hey, Josh, that‟s mine. Competing for Computer

#1.

281. Tex: Oh, I‟m sorry.

282. Andy: Bad boy.

283. Tex: I‟m sorry.

284. Andy: Anyways you have to share it with

your partner.

285. Josh: Yeah, I know.

286. We‟re partners! Josh‟s use of “we”.

287. Tex: Wait, let‟s move to that one so

we…

288. Josh: xxxx I remember.

289. Tex: Ahh:: right there. Tex moves chair to

Computer #2. Josh and Tex

try to sit down in the same

chair. Both stand up.

290. Bring my book over here. Takes control of action.

Tex takes chair. Josh

squats on floor beside him,

and pops another candy

into his mouth.

291. Andy: Go to my desk and get three little

cards.

To his partner, Nico. Josh

is watching Andy.

292. No, go to my desk and get three of

those cards.

324

293. Nico: No, no, no, what the heck are you

doin‟?

To Andy.

294. Tex: Okay. Internet…let‟s find it. Josh stand at Tex‟s left

shoulder.

295. Do you just want to try marigold

because//

296. Andy: //I can‟t find any pencil. Josh distracted watching

the pencil search by Andy

and Nico.

297. Nico: You should have brought

something.

298. Andy: Hey look I found me a pencil.

299. Tex: Look xxxxx.

300. Josh: Uh, huh. You have to xxxxx.

301. Tex: Look up number four.

302. Josh: No, look up number five.

303. Tex: Where‟s my pencil?

304. Josh: Marigolds:: Nico appears behind Tex

and Josh. Nico puts his

hands on the heads of Josh

and Tex, rubs their heads,

pats them, turns away, then

turns back.

305. Nico: Hey Josh, whatcha doin;?

306. Josh: Looking for marigolds.

307. Nico: Try lookin‟ in a book.

308. Josh: Uhh:::

309. Nico: Okay, don‟t do it. Nico leaves.

310. Tex: xxxxx

311. Josh: Let‟s go back. Josh squats behind Tex and

points at computer screen.

312. Tex: That‟s the French one.

313. Tess: What are you looking up? Tess sits down at

Computer #3.

314. Tex: Those are French, French

marigolds.

315. Tess: There‟s French marigolds and then

there‟s African.

316. Tex: Which one, which one‟s the

African?

325

317. Tess: They‟re just balls.

318. Tex: Okay, you don‟t need//

319. Andy: //Balls! Grinning broadly.

320. Tex: Andy, don‟t:: don‟t::

321. Josh: Ew::

322. Tex: We‟re looking for:: we‟re looking

for a flow::er::

323. Josh: Let‟s do French. Proposed action. Josh uses

plural.

324. Tex: We‟ll do French. Tex changes verb tense to

make the proposal a

command.

325. Cause the French are cool. Josh begins to draw.

326. Andy: Where‟s the French?

327. Tess: They‟re right here.

328. Andy: Where‟s French? Repeats 326.

329. Tex: That‟s the French marigold! Pointing to computer

screen.

330. Andy: It‟s balls! It‟s balls!

331. Tex: Would you stop talkin‟ about balls

for cryin‟ out loud.

332. Andy: Tess is a bad girl.

333. Tex: I bet you‟re gonna call everyone a

bad girl.

To Andy.

334. It‟s a little bit like::lettuce. To Josh. Tex begins to

draw. Josh finishes

drawing and puts down

pencil.

335. And there‟s a little green Tex points to Josh‟s paper.

Josh picks up the green

pencil and makes one

mark, then puts the pencil

down.

336. Give me a second where‟s red?

337. Here it is.

338. I‟m using this cause if we‟re gonna

do French we need to do red.

339. It‟s red.

340. Andy: Here, it‟s yellow.

341. Tex: It‟s red and yellow.

342. Andy: It‟s yellow and green.

343. That is the French, that‟s not.

326

344. Tex: I think that‟s African.

345. Tess: Yes, xxxx.

346. Guys we have a really good xxxxx

347. Tex: What‟s that? Looking at Tess‟s monitor.

Tex points to Computer

Screen #3.

348. Tess: It‟s the columbine thing. Both boys look right. Josh

stands up to see. Tex leans

right.

349. Tex: It‟s off the xxxx.

350. Sx: We „llowed to do that?

351. Sxs: No!

352. Tess: Everyone‟s like no.

353. We‟re allowed to do it without that:

354. Tex: What‟s it called? Tex stands up and leans

over to Computer #3.

355. Columbian?

356. Oh neat.

357. Those girls are xxxx.

358. Andy: It said use color!

359. Tess: We are::, we‟re going to redo it

360. We‟re just, we‟re coloring after this

so we don‟t xxxx//

361. Tex: //”One picture

above is a French marigold from

Mexico.”

Tex moves back to sitting

and looking at Computer

#2. Reading from the

computer.

362. Why is it a French marigold if it‟s

from Mexico?

363. Josh: French!

364. Tex: It says a French marigold from

Mexico.

365. Humph, a French marigold!

366. Whattaya want to do next? To Josh. Offers him some

say in task.

367. Josh: A Columbian.

368. Tex: A what?

369. Columbian. C-O

370. You type it in and I‟ll spell it for

you.

371. C-O-L-UM-BINE

372. Josh: What?

327

373. Tex: B-I

374. Josh: No, two.

375. Tex: I thought you said this.

376. Columbian=now we do search.

377. Josh: Columbian:::

378. Tex: Here‟s the flowers.

379. Umm::Let‟s see if this is it.

380. This is it.

381. No, no, go down an see if it‟s there.

382. Josh: Okay, it‟s not there.

383. Tex: Umm::should we just do

Columbian because we‟re lookin‟

for the flower.

Talking to researcher.

384. Researcher Columbine High School?

385. Tex: No, we‟re looking for the flower.

386. Researcher Is the second one the flower?

Aquilegia?

387. Yeah, that‟s the Latin term.

388. Tex: „Cause we‟re looking for a picture

of it.

389. Researcher Click on Aquilegia and let‟s see.

390. That‟s the genus name.

391. Tex: I think this is it.

392. Researcher They come in different colors,

purple, yellow or peachy color.

393. Tex: I think I saw them.

394. Researcher I have a lot of them in my yard.

395. Tex: I saw them and they were purple

and white.

396. Researcher There‟s all different colors.

397. Go down and see if they have more

pictures.

398. They have…down…purple ones.

399. Tex: Blue butterfly.

400. Researcher They‟re all the same shape but

they‟re different colors.

401. Josh: Let‟s do:: Proposes combined

activity. Josh squats down

and starts drawing with

paper on the computer

desk.

402. Tex: We can do different colors. Rejects Josh‟s proposal.

328

403. Sx: xxxx

404. Tex: Umm: It‟s called Columbian.

405. C-O-L-U-M-B-I-N-E.

406. Columbian. Josh stands while Tex

draws.

407. Josh: Who‟s Matthew and Maggie? Josh looks at Tex‟s packet

and asks about the next

question in the

comprehension packet.

408. Yeah, they‟re neighbors.

409. Tex: What happened to our books?

410. Books. Disappeared. Gone.

411. Josh: Are they at our desk?

412. Tex: No, I brought my book here with

me.

413. You don‟t need the computer right

now=hang on.

To another student. (36:39)

414. Your turn. To same student.

415. Come over here. To Josh. Directive

command.

416. Bring this. Gives Josh the colored

pencils.

417. I got it. Both boys move back to

Josh‟s desk. The make

another trip back to the

computer and then move to

Tex‟s desk. Tex brings a

chair from the computer.

Tex returned to the

computer for another chair

while Josh sits in the first

one. Tex returns and sits in

second chair.

418. Let‟s move closer to your desk so

she doesn‟t have a hard time

hearing.

Referring getting closer to

the digital recorder.

419. It says, “Write answers in complete

sentences.”

420. “Who are Matthew and Maggie and

have you met them earlier in the

book.

421. Why or why not?”

329

422. Matthew [3 sec.] and Maggie [9

sec.] are [3 sec.] Mr. [2 sec.] xxxx‟s

[3 sec.] neighbors.

Tex dictates answer to Josh

while writing his own

answer.

423. Josh: We only have five minutes. (40:07)

424. Tex: We have enough time.

425. neighbors.

426. This is um::

427. Let‟s say we have met them in the

first chapter.

428. Let‟:s put on page:: Ten second delay.

429. I‟ll find the page. Searching in book for 21

seconds/

430. Josh: Isn‟t that the first chapter?

431. Tex: Huh?

432. Josh: first chapter.

433. Tex: I know, but I‟ll just put the

page…umm::

434. Umm::It should be::

435. On page 8.

436. The next question is why do

Sarah‟s eyes fill with tears?

Tex looks at Josh for 2

seconds. Josh looks at

paper.

437. Her eyes filled with tears because

she missed…

Looks at Josh again and

pauses. Josh looks at paper

438. She missed things in Maine. Five second delay. Both

boys pick up pencils.

439. Her:: eyes:: filled:: with:: tears:: Writing answer as he says

the words. Before Tex is

done Josh puts down pencil

and eats.

440. Teacher: Okay, you have about five minutes

left.

441. Guys, five minutes of work today.

442. Tex: because:: she:: missed:: Maine:: Tex looks at Josh‟s answer

and points (42:42)

443. Don‟t forget to capitalize Maine.

444. Change the xxx by the way. Josh gives a quick snap and

point with fingers,

grimaces and then erases.

Tex turns the packet page.

445. Let‟s see the next question is, “Was

Anna right about the chickens?

330

446. How do you know she was right?”

447. Josh: Umm:: Four second delay. Sits up

and looks at Tex.

448. Tex: Yes:: cause:: Sarah named them. Four second delay.

449. Sarah:: named the:: chickens.

Named the chickens.

Dictating to Josh, while he

writes answers on his own

page. Josh checks Tex‟s

paper then continues

writing.

450. There‟s an “s” because there was

more than one chicken.

Tex comments to Josh

while continuing to write.

451. “What is special about Sarah‟s

garden?”

Reading from packet. Tex

looks at Josh. No uptake.

452. It says, “what is special about

Sarah‟s garden?”

Extends line 451. Josh

gives puzzled look – gaze

is on his paper. No uptake.

453. It was given to her. Josh does another quick

point toward Tex with his

finger and picks up his

pencil.

454. It was given to her by a friend.

455. Her friend.

456. Plants were given to her by a

friend.

457. Plants:: were:: given:: to, plants

were given to her:: by:: here::

friend.

Tex is dictating to Josh

while writing the answer.

458. Plants were given to her by a

friend.

459. xxxx

460. One last question.

461. “How does Papa show he likes

Sarah?”

Reading from the packet.

Josh does a “hands down”

gesture and has a puzzled

expression. He looks at

Tex, then looks away.

462. Uhh:, uhh:, uhh.

463. Tess: He went and picked her flowers.

464. Yeah.

465. Tex: He picks her flowers! Both boys jump forward

and begin writing. Tex is

grinning.

331

466. Teacher: Okay in your seats.

467. Ten, nine, eight, seven. (45:13)

332

Video Transcript – Science Game


1. Teacher: Chair right there. Class direction.

2. Can you guys just scoot down and let

him sit?

3. Okay, I expect a little bit more respect

for the belongings in this classroom=

4. They‟re not mine, they‟re not yours.

5. They belong to the school.

6. We‟ve left a huge mess back there.

7. So all the number threes I asked to get

boards please go back there and clean up

the mess quickly.

Five students move to the

back of the room to tidy the

area.

8. While they are doing that, the rest of

you are going to listen to the rules of the

game.

9. Arthur, okay.

10. What‟s going to happen is this.

11. I am going to ask a question.

12. Every group is going to write the answer

on the board.

13. Okay, so you‟re going to have to discuss

it with your group.

14. Kind of like numbered heads together,

okay?

15. Then I‟ll call a number and they‟re

going to hold up the board=

16. Now you don‟t want the other groups to

see your board.

17. Okay, and if you‟re right I‟ll tell you to

put a point on the board under your

group name.

18. Xxxxxxxx

19. No Bam. Bam is not following

directions and is singled

out for a reprimand.

20. One white board per group cause you‟re

going to discuss it and give one answer

21. Okay, first question.

22. We‟re going to do it just like numbered

heads together

333

23. so you have time to think about it on

your own before you discuss it with

your group, okay?

24. Bam, your entire group needs to have

access to that white board.

25. If it‟s in your lap away from

everybody, does your entire group have

access?

26. Put it in the middle.

27. With the marker.

28. Okay, as soon as mouths are closed,

we‟ll begin.

Video focus begins on the

group of Tess, Nico, Josh &

Michelle. (1:59)

29. It‟s now taken over a minute for us to

close our mouth.

Implicit rebuke for talking

at wrong time.

30. Shadow: xxxxx

31. Teacher: I didn‟t ask you a question, Shadow. Rebuke for talking

32. Okay. Michelle and Tess are

sitting on one side of a set of

four desks; Nico and Josh sit

across from the, facing

them. Tess has her class

notes open in front of her

and Josh has a Science book

open on the desk. Tess,

Michelle and Josh are

leaning in toward the desks,

while Nico has his knees

against his desk and is

leaning outward

33. First question, tell me the main

function of the roots.

Question.

34. On your own first. Restatement of previously

stated game rule.

35. Main function of the roots. Repetition of question

36. Think on your own first= Repetition of game rule.

37. Don‟t write anything until you‟ve

discussed it Robbie.

Teacher monitoring of

student‟s compliance with

the stated rules. Public

rebuke of Robbie.

38. Numbered heads together. On the teacher‟s command,

334

Michelle, Tess and Josh

move together with their

heads hovering over the

desk. Michelle has the

marker in her hand and is

poised to write. Nico leans

in for a moment then sits

back and remains quiet.

39. Michelle: It‟s to take in water.

40. Tess: No, to anchor the plant. To anchor the

plant//

41. Michelle: //And to take in water.

42. Tess: “Anchor plants and take in water and

minerals.”//

Pointing to her notes and

reading.

43. Josh: //Yes//

44. Michelle: // to suck up water//

45. Tess: //Uh-

huh to anchor plants//

46. Josh: //To take in water and

minerals.

47. Michelle: water Speaking as she writes the

answer.

48. Josh: Take in water and minerals, Tess.

49. Michelle: How d‟ya spell minerals?...Anchor

50. Tess: Here let me have it, hurry up. Tess takes the marker and

starts writing.

51. Nico: Get out of my desk! Facing away from group,

talking to another group.

Lines 50 and 51

overlapping.

52. Josh: Oh yeah we got it.

53. Nico: //Tell him to get off my desk! Loud, insistent voice

interacting with the group

behind him and facing away

from partners.

54. Can you please get off my desk.

55. Tess: Don‟t mess with it

56. Josh: Hey look. Please. Josh makes a bid for the

marker and white board.

Tess Defends her possession

of the marker and Michelle

sides with Tess.

335

57. Michelle: No::, don‟t do that.

58. That will mess her up

59. That will mess her up. Repetition of line 58.

60. Tess: Don‟t. Wait.

61. No, no, no, no, I‟ve got it. Tess takes the marker and

walks away from the group.

62. Michelle: It doesn‟t say xxxx Michelle and Josh continue

the discussion in Tess‟s

absence.

63. Just kidding. Michelle begins to

contradict what Tess wrote,

then changes her position.

64. Josh: Anchors the plant and takes in water

and minerals.

65. Michelle No:: it takes in//water and minerals and

anchors the plants, anchors the plants.

66. Nico: //Please don‟t push my desk. Speaking to members of

other group.

67. Or my clothing. Tess returns with marker.

68. Josh: Plant Nothing a word Tess had

misspelled.

69. Michelle: Here let me have it. Bid to control the white

board and make the

correction.

70. Let me have it, Tess. Repetition of 69 with tag.

71. Tess: I get to write it. Refusal to give up the

marker.

72. Let me do it again. Extends her time of having a

turn

73. And then we‟re going to start. Monitoring the teacher‟s

move to call on the groups

to answer.

74. Teacher: Okay, number 2s stand up. Command. Structuring time

75. Holdup your boards so I can see it.

76. Michelle: Just let me:: (5:02)

77. Teacher: I‟m asking your groups to have a

discussion so everyone in your groups

will agree.

Implicit rebuke of students

who are not working

cooperatively

78. Michelle: Yes:::::xxxxx Teacher points and nods yes

toward their group.

79. Josh: Where‟s the marker? Vying to get marker from

Tess to put up the team‟s

336

points on the board.

80. Nico: What‟s this for? Pointing to the digital

recorder. Not engaged in the

science game task.

81. Michelle: Put the point up. Command directed at the two

boys to write the points on

the large whiteboard but not

to write answers on the

group‟s small white board.

82. Tess: No, the marker‟s up there. Rebuffs Josh – Josh tried to

take the group marker from

Tess but she resists.

83. Josh: No, it‟s my turn. Where… Makes a bid for a turn by

demanding the marker and

turn to write answers.

84. Michelle: Okay, I know. Uptake – Understands Josh‟s

claim of a turn.

85. And then me, cause you make a mark

right under the//

Negotiating for Josh to have

the marker to give the team a

point, and then to give the

marker to Michelle for

writing the answers on the

whiteboard.

86. Nico: //What is this for? Shouting and pointing to

digital recorder. No response

from team members.

87. Tess: You guys can put the points up// To Josh and Nico. Tess

makes a proposal that she

will answer questions and the

boys can put the points on

the board.

88. Michelle: //Yeah, even if it‟s another number

then//

Renegotiating the rules of the

game in a way that limits the

boys‟ participation and aligns

her with Tess.

89. Nico:

//Hey, what‟s that for?

Pointing to digital recorder.

90. Josh: It‟s to// Responding to Nico‟s

repeated question.

91. Tess: //record us. Pretend it‟s not even

there.

Command to Nico. Interrupts

possible conversation

between Nico and Josh.

Takes control as the director

337

of the group activity/

92. Michelle: Ooh, that‟s nasty. Pointing to eraser that Nico

has.

93. Nico: Alright, xxxxxx. Uptake on Michelle‟s

comment. Puts eraser in

desk.

94. Josh: It is too. It‟s a recorder.

95. Nico: Oh::::::

96. Teacher: Alright. Good. Hope-Marie, give the,

tell the group one main things that roots

do.

97. Hope-

Marie

Hope-Marie: It sucks up water. Speaks in soft voice.

98. Teacher: What is one main thing that roots do? Apparently didn‟t hear

Hope-Marie‟s response.

99. Okay, they take up, absorb nutrients

and water from the soil.

Seven second delay. Hope-

Marie has confused look on

her face.

100. And I saw the Raptors who actually

had the second function of the roots

which is what?

101. Tess: Umm, it was..what was it? Assumes authority by taking

the floor to speak for the

group.

102. Michelle: Anchors Whispered to Tess.

103. Tess: It anchors it.

104. Teacher: Okay, it also anchors the plant and

keeps it from blowing away=

105. When I‟m talking, you‟re listening. Critique and correction of

student talking when teacher

expects silence.

106. It works out well that way.

107. When you talk, then I‟ll listen, okay?

108. Okay, next question.

109. Define the word dormant.

110. Think of it on your own. Restatement of game rules

111. Define the word dormant. Restatement of game

question

112. You can look through your resources

during this think time.

Cues for expected and

valued behaviors.

113. We‟re not talking, Michelle. Critique of talking – public

rebuke to Michelle

338

114. Numbered heads together.

115. Tess,

Michelle

and Josh:

State of rest.

116. Tess: state of rest. Write fast Michelle is writing. Ted and

Josh have heads together.

Nico is leaning back tapping

Josh with his pencil. When

Josh does not respond Nico

whacks him on the back

with the pencil. At this point

the group breaks into two

groups – boys and girls.

Lines 117-124 and lines125-

132 are overlapping,

separate conversations.

117. Michelle: State…of…rest. Writing.

118. Okay.

119. Tess: Hey watch, can you do this? Tess takes the marker and

begins decorating the

borders of the whiteboard.

120. Michelle: No, don‟t. Critiques appropriateness of

Tess‟s artwork

121. We‟re not allowed. Invokes rule

122. Tess: Yes we can. Refutes Michelle‟s claim

123. Michelle: We‟re not allowed. Repetition of 121

124. Remember when she said can? Invokes teacher‟s authority

125. Josh: Stop. Responding to Nico‟s

repeated comments poking

at Josh

126. Nico: xxxxx skateboard? Nico is playing with a small

toy skateboard that he had in

his desk.

127. No, no, no, I can‟t even ride a real

skateboard.

128. Josh: I can-=I can Ollie.

129. Nico: What‟s an Ollie?

130. Josh: When you do this. He takes the toy skateboard

and makes a motion.

131. See, I can jump up.

132. I can make my board do that and jump

up.

Nico pushes a gooey eraser

in Josh‟s face. Josh turns

339

133. Teacher: Okay, number 5s stand up with your

board please.

Command; Time boundary

in game

134. Point, point. Teacher is pointing to

groups and saying “Point” if

they got the answer correct.-

135. Tess: Point. She extends the marker

toward the boys. Josh takes

it.

136. Nico: I do, I do, I do. You‟ve already done it. Uptake on the implicit

command from Tess for one

of the boys to put up points.

Nico begins competing with

Josh for the turn.

137. Josh: xxxxx Calling out to Nico who has

left the group and gone to

the board, finding a marker

there.

138. Tess: Give it to Michelle. Command Josh to give up

the marker.

139. Michelle: Erase, erase, hurry up. To Tess

140. Hurry up, hurry up.

141. It‟s starting, it‟s starting.

142. We need your soft.

143. Tess: I don‟t know where my soft is.

144. It disappeared.

145. Josh: Next question.

146. Ques-tee-own.

147. Tess: You can‟t do it two times in a row. To Michelle.

148. Teacher: Okay, the next question. (8:25) Time indicator

149. We‟ve got to get control of our mouths

guys.

Thirteen second delay while

students continue to chatter.

Rebuke to students about

talking

150. How do plants, give me at least one

way plants depend on animals or

humans.

151. What‟s one way that plants depend on

animals or humans.

152. Tess: Where‟s my, where‟s my quiz sheet? Unauthorized talking

153. Josh and

Nico:

Sshhh. Rebuke to Tess in an effort

to make her stop talking

154. Tess: I had my quiz sheet!// Continues talk and ignores

340

classmates

155. Teacher: //Think time not talk

time.

Implicit rebuke to Tess;

Reminder of markers of

time boundaries

156. Do you have a question about the

question?

To Tess. In contrast to other

students, she receives a

question as opposed to a

rebuke

157. Sx: What was, can you say it again?

158. Teacher: Yeah, listen carefully guys.

159. This is why we have to control our

mouths.

Rebuke for talking, directed

at entire class

160. Give at least one way that plants

depend on animals or humans.

161. Michelle: I know. Whispering. Implicit

recognition that she should

not be talking

162. We got it.

163. Josh: xxxxxxxx Whispering. Continues

unauthorized talking

164. Michelle: I know. Whispering.

165. Josh: xxxxxx Whispering.

166. Teacher: Numbered heads together. Tess, Michelle and Josh

jump together into a huddle.

Nico doesn‟t move.

167. Tess: They give//

168. Michelle: //pollen.

169. Tess: They give that, they give carbon

dioxide.

170. Michelle: Yeah, put that. Concedes/aligns with Tess.

171. Josh: Carbon dioxide.

172. Tess: I put the xxxxxx.

173. Nico: Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na Batman::: Singing quietly in the

background while Tess

writes the answer.

174. Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na Batman:::

175. Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na

176. Michelle: Let Nico do this one. Move to include Nico.

177. Nico: What? Responds to hearing his

name.

178. Josh: Put up the points. Defines Nico‟s

participation.

341

179. Nico: Okay. Uptake on Michelle‟s

proposal to include him in

the group action

180. I wanna write. Bid for fuller participation.

181. Tess: Okay, okay. Said in an impatient,

conciliatory tone to Nico.

182. Nico: Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na Batman::: Uptake on Tess‟s comment.

Withdraws from group and

begins singing again.

183. Michelle: And then he can put the points while

you‟re there//

Talking to Josh, negotiating

for he and Nico to work

together on putting up

points.

184. Nico: //Na, na, na, na, na, na, na,

na Batman:::

185. Tess: So I don‟t have to sit by myself// ???

186. Nico: // Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na

Batman:::

187. We’re done! Shouts toward teacher. Bid

to control group action

without group consensus?

188. Teacher: Okay:: Uptake to Nico‟s outburst.

189. Remember when I call a number that

person should stand up and everyone

else should be silent//

Repetition of game rules;

Implicit rebuke of those not

following rules

190. Michelle: //We give them carbon

dioxide.

Whispered.

191. Teacher: Okay, number threes stand up with

your board.

192. Nico: I‟m the three. Teacher nods yes toward

him indicating a correct

answer and that the group

gets a point.

193. Michelle: Oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah. Doing a little dance.

194. Teacher: Okay, I called a number which means

that everybody else should be silent.

Interpretation of game rules

195. People that are holding up the boards

may go give their group a point if I

gave you a point.

For the first time makes it

explicit who should be

putting points on the board

(the person who holds the

board and represents the

group). Nico pokes Tess.

342

196. Nico, hands to yourself please. Rebuke to Nico

197. Josh: Whose turn is it? Negotiating turns

198. Teacher: Okay, xxxxxx.

199. Tess: It‟s my turn to write. Bid to control group action.

200. You‟ll write next. Gaze and promise directed

to Josh. Ignores Nico.

201. Nico: Ahh, I‟ll skip my turn// Uptake on Tess‟s

organization of turns.

202. Teacher: Hey guys.

203. The mouth thing is really starting to

annoy me today.

Losing patience with

students‟ persistent breaking

of her rules

204. I‟ve got a headache and I had to sit all

morning.

Gives explanation for

impatience

205. Xxxx all morning.

206. „Kay? Request for understanding

207. So let‟s control our mouths, so Ms. K

doesn‟t get grumpy.

Appeal to students for

compliance to rules

208. Okay, Rachel what was it, Assigns turn

209. That one thing that plants depend on

from humans or animals.

210. Rachel: Carbon dioxide.

211. Teacher: Okay, amazingly everybody said the

same thing.

212. They got the point.

213. Umm.

214. What are some other things that plants

depend on from animals or humans?

215. Tess? Assigns turn

216. Tess: They pollen, maybe animals pollinate.

217. Teacher: Especially the bugs that fly around the

flowers.

218. Albert, you need to listen to these cause

it might be on the test tomorrow.

Tells reason why students

should be engaged in

activity – for test

219. Okay?

220. The bugs that fly around the flowers

may get pollen on their legs:

221. And then they take it to another flower

and pollinate another flower.

222. That‟s something else.

223. Anything else?

343

224. Te- or Elizabeth. Assigns turn

225. Elizabeth: Um, like sometimes you get spores on

yourself and umm, like seeds.

226. Teacher: Okay, so we help disperse seeds=

227. Remember we talked about a bird that

comes along and eats the strawberry

seeds,

Invokes public memory of

previous class

228. And he flies away to somewhere else//

229. Sx: //And

poops it.

230. Teacher: And the you know he poops and the

seeds are xxxx//

231. Nico: //Eewww. Response to “poop”

232. Teacher: I know, but you‟ll all remember it

won‟t you?

Response to Nico

233. Michelle: That‟s nasty. Response to “poop”

234. Teacher: Why did//

235. Nico: //Don‟t let her say it again. Many students begin talking

236. Alex: I can‟t hear what you said. Sudden attention to teacher

237. Sx: I don‟t know what you said.

238. Teacher: I‟m waiting for your classmates wait= Time invoked

239. Since we decided to take turns talking Collective memories of

previous stated rules or faux

memory?

240. Apparently it‟s not my turn yet. Implicit rebuke

241. Alex, what we said is that animals will

eat seeds, like from fruit,

Response to 236

242. from stuff like strawberries:

243. And that type of thing

244. And when they fly away somewhere

else,

245. when they poop the seeds will come

out in their poop,

246. and then they grow wherever they

poop.

247. Alright very good. Assessment

248. Next question.- (12:56) Time boundary

249. Tess: Now it‟s your turn. To Michelle. Does not

follow through on promise

to Josh from line 200.

250. Teacher: Let‟s see if we can do a better job

controlling our mouths when we‟re not

Rebuke; uses time frames to

evaluate when speaking is

344

supposed to be using them. appropriate

251. Bam. Rebuke for talking.

252. Tell me what cells are. Tess starts writing the

answer on the whiteboard.

253. Think time. Time boundary

254. Honey, it‟s not a matter of let me do it,

255. It‟s a matter of I need to inform my

entire group so that they all know.

Gives reason for repeated

demands for compliance to

game rules

256. So that they all can do a good job on

the test tomorrow.

Teacher‟s reason for the

review game activity

257. Okay? Appeal for compliance

258. Think time. Time boundary

259. Look at your resources. Expectation that students

will use texts to access

knowledge

260. What are cells? Tess continues to write on

whiteboard.

261. Numbered heads together. Tess, Michelle and Josh lean

into group. Nico doesn‟t

move. Ted writes on

whiteboard. Nico keeps

tapping Josh on the shoulder

and talking in a separate

conversation.

262. Tess,

Michelle

and Josh:

The building block of life.

263. Tess: Michelle, don‟t say it so loud. Controlling of Michelle‟s

speech

264. Nico: Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na Batman::: Overlapping with the other

conversation and in the

background.

265. Michelle: The building block of life.

266. Nico: Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na Batman:::

267. Tess: xxxxxx Gives the marker to Josh.

268. Michelle: So?

269. Josh: The building block of life. Speaking as he writes.

270. Nico: Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na Batman:::

271. Michelle: Whoa, Tess. Monitoring Tess‟s actions

272. Nico: Hey, Josh. Bidding for Josh‟s attention

273. Josh: Stay in the xxxx. Monitoring Tess‟s writing

345

274. Nico: Watch this. Bidding for Josh‟s attention

275. I was trying to make it do this.

276. Michelle: Oh, yeah. Comment on group‟s

answer

277. That‟s awesome.

278. Nico: Hey Josh. Bidding for Josh‟s attention.

Repetition of 272

279. I was trying to make it do this. Repetition of 275

280. Go up do a back flip and land straight.

281. Josh: You mean like this?// Uptake on Nico‟s

comments.

282. Michelle: //xxxxx

283. Teacher: Okay, number ones.

284. Stand up and hold it please. Time boundar

285. Good, good, good. Pointing to groups.

286. Michelle: xxxxxxx

287. Teacher: Okay, when I call a number what‟s

supposed to happen to all the other

mouths?

Repetition of game rules

stated as question to class

288. Sx: Sshh. Student uptake; Shows

understanding of rules and

expectations

289. Teacher: It should be silent. Used modal to put moral

obligation on action

290. Nobody should be talking because you

have boards.

Repeat and expansion on

moral obligation

291. Good, good, okay everybody got a

point that time.

Assessment

292. Xxxxx your point. (14:44)

293. Researcher: Do me one more favor. Request for students to

show answer to video

camera; Interruption in

regular class activity

294. When you write it, before you erase it,

295. Could you show it?

296. Show it so I can see what‟s on there?

297. For the camera.

298. Tess: Okay.

299. Michelle: Okay.

300. Researcher: Just from now on.

301. Tess,

Michelle,

Okay.

346

Josh and

Nico:

302. Researcher: So, you don‟t have to do it while you‟re

hiding it,

303. But after you‟re done.

304. Josh: It‟s been twelve minutes on the// Looking at the digital

recorder; Monitoring time of

recording

305. Researcher: Hold it up so the camera can see it,

okay?

306. So I know what your answers are.

307. Josh: xxxx for ten minutes. Comment on time of

recording

308. Tess: Okay. Response to researcher

309. Researcher: I know it will keep//

310. Josh: //Okay. Response to researcher

311. Researcher: Thank you.

312. Michelle: Put it down here// Negotiating new position of

whiteboard.

313. Sx: //No, put it down here.

314. Michelle: Okay.

315. Teacher: Okay, mouths should be shut ready for

a new question.

Implicit repetition of rules

stated as a declarative

statment

316. Michelle: Don‟t erase everything on there. Wants Josh to quit messing

with the digital recorder.

317. Teacher: Okay, I want you to name: the six

classification levels.

318. In order::in order.

319. Think time. Time boundaries

320. Do you have a question about the

question?

Response to one student‟s

continued talking

321. Sx: Is it xxxx?

322. Teacher: Can‟t tell ya.

323. Sx: It‟s right here.

324. Teacher: Classifications in order.

325. Numbered heads together. Time boundary

326. Tess: Kingdom, division, class.

327. Josh: No:::Division? Then… Opposes Teds answer and

offers new one.

328. Michelle: That‟s silly. Uptake to Josh‟s answer

329. Tess: Okay, whatever// Admits Josh was right.

347

330. Josh: Just do that. Just do that. Just do that.

331. Michelle: Kingdom, division, class:: order::

family:: e-e:ge:

Talking while writing.

332. Tess: species.

333. Michelle: Nus

334. Cobra: Nico, don‟t play with your eraser. Comment from a student in

another group.

335. Nico: Alright, I‟m sorry. Uptake to Cobra‟s rebuke

336. Josh: It‟s alright.

337. Here, can he pick that up and show it? Wants to show the answer

for the camera. Asks

permission

338. Tess: It, it, no. Resisted by Tess

339. It wasn‟t what she said. Calls on authority of

researcher‟s directions

340. Still not yet. Monitoring time

341. Michelle: No, she has to still… Aligning with Tess and

refuting

342. Xxxx hold it.

343. Nico: It‟s still xxxx.

344. Tess: They‟ll look, they‟ll look. Gives reason to not hold up

board

345. Xxxxxxxx

346. Put your head over there so xxxxx. Command to Nico

347. Nico: My head‟s not in the way? Response to Tess‟s

command

348. Why is my head always in the way? Uptake to social

implications of Tess‟s

statement

349. Tess: Order, family, genus, species.

350. Did we miss anything? Inclusive move to ask group

351. Michelle: No, okay.

352. Oh yeah, I‟m writing//

353. Teacher: // Number twos,

hold them up.

Time boundary

354. Quietly. Restatement of rules

355. I should not hear anything right now. Implicit rebuke

356. Okay, „kay. Pointing to groups to give

points.

357. Cheater on the spelling there. Comment on the spelling on

the Raptor‟s white board

358. Yeah, you may…

348

359. Nico: Hey, I‟ll put up the point.

360. Teacher: I shouldn‟t hear you talking. Rebuke

361. You‟re good. Comment on the picture the

Raptors had added to their

whiteboard. Directed to ???

362. I like your picture there to help you.

363. Tess: Oh, yes, ooo. Response to teacher

comment in 357.

364. We just wanted to hurry. Defends putting on picture

365. Michelle: I don‟t know how to spell it. Explains why she drew the

picture

366. Josh: A-I-V-E-I-somethin‟-somethin‟-

somethin‟.

Effort to give correct

spelling

367. Teacher: Okay, listen carefully. (17:40-30:12) Game

continues for seven more

questions.

368. Teacher: That‟s the second time I had to do it. Time reference

349

369. Okay, umm, a couple of you got it

wrong

370. so we need to talk about that one for a

minute.

Time reference

371. What does the process of photosynthesis

do?

Michelle puts her hand up

and faces teacher.

372. Michelle. Assigns turn

373. Michelle: I forget (giggle).

374. Teacher: Your group got it right so you should

have discussed it with your group and

know what it is.

Tess and Josh put up their

hands. Implicit rebuke and

accusation that Michelle

did not follow the game

rules

375. Michelle: I did. Defense to teacher to the

accusation. Looks on

papers.

376. Oh. Implies that she know

remembers

377. Teacher: Yes. Maintains turn

378. Michelle: They make their own food.

379. Teacher: It‟s a process that plants use to make

their own food…

Expansion of Michelle‟s

answer.

380. Okay, next question.

381. What happens in germination?

382. Think time. Time boundary. Josh and

Michelle dive over to look

at Tess‟s notes. One second

later, Nico moves toward

the group. While the

teacher talks, Nico and

Josh turn toward her.

383. Now Raptors, you do realize that Tess‟s

notes are not going home with anybody

but Tess tonight.

Implicit rebuke of group

members and implicit

affirmation of Tess‟s use of

text to answer question

384. so you may want to be looking at some

of your own resources as well

Recommendation of what

students should be doing.

Implicit rebuke

385. so that when you study tonight you have

them available to you.

Implicit command to study

notes in the evening for

upcoming test.

350

Josh moves back to his

own desk and book. Nico

backs off from the group.

Michelle looks briefly at

her own notebook. As soon

as the teacher‟s gaze is

diverted, Josh and Michelle

dive back toward Tess‟s

notes. Nico remains sitting

back from the desk.

386. Tess: What was it? Asks for repetition of

question

387. Teacher: What happens in this germination stage

of a plant‟s life?

388. „kay numbered heads together. Time boundary

389. Sxs: It sprouts.

390. Teacher: I‟m hearing it from all around the room. Comment on student

talking in opposition to

game rules

391. You‟re going to give other groups the

answer.

Game continues for four

more questions (31:51-

41:14

351

Video Transcript – Gary’s Reading Group

The Language Arts Class was broken into parts. In the first part of the lesson, students

were taking a spelling pre-test. The transcript begins at the point where students were

broken into reading groups.


1. Megan: What does harvest mean? (30:26)

Megan, Gary and William are

ranged around a desk. Kristy is

collecting her materials and not

involved.

Speaks inquisitively.

2. Gary: It‟s you, it means when

you‟re, you‟re picking

things.

Talking emphatically to Megan.

3. Corn has a night when you

pick it.

4. William: That‟s not // harvest. Overlapping with Gary.

5. I don‟t think that‟s what

harvest means.//

6. Gary: //Yes it does. Defensively; Overlapping

7. Megan: That‟s not harvesting. Rrepeats William‟s comment from

line 2. Aligns with William.

8. I don‟t know what harvest

is//

9. but it‟s definitely not

harvest,

10. it‟s definitely not that.// Repeat of line 8

11. Gary: //Yes

it is,

Defending his definition. Said

emphatically, turning to William.

12. I know what a harvest is. Defending knowledge.

13. I know what a harvest is. Repeat of line 11

14. William: I‟ll tell you the truth. William faces Gary – Uses emphatic

tone; waves left hand up and down

to make his point. Makes claim of

having the truth, claim of superior

knowledge to Gary.

352

15. On our five acres where

we‟re building a house in

Waterton,

16. this is in the country//

17. Gary: //No,

that is not a harvest.

Kristy joins the group.

18. William: All the people are

harvesting.

Leans forward – gestures up and

down with his right hand

emphasizing his words.

19. They don‟t do that.

20. They use machines, tractors

uh

21. Gary: Yeah, only combines,

combines.

Faces William – Gestures with left

hand

22. Megan: I should know what harvest

is because I live on a farm.

Uptake on William‟s claim of

experiential knowledge (Lines 14 &

15). Bid to establish some authority

based on her cultural capital as a

farm girl.

23. INTERRUPTION

Teacher interrupts with

instructions; William

continues talk about Stone

Fox as big, bad wolf from

earlier conversation; brief

discussion about book mark

and garbled talk between

Gary and William about

Dum-dum.

(31:10_During the interim, students

change their tone with each other to

a friendly exchange. Megan chats

with Gary about bookmark. Gary

and William engage in word play

about Dum-dum in a friendly tone,

which contrasts with discussion

about the definition.

24. Kristy: “The harvest was just

weeks away.”

During the interruption, Kristy

searches for and finds the quote in

the book and reads it to herself;

25. xxxxx To Gary, pointing at his book.

26. Gary: No, that‟s not a harvest… To Megan. Emphatic tone resumed.

353

27. Megan: I still don‟t know what

harvest means.

28. Gary: It‟s where like when the

corn is really brown, the

combine would go through

and scoop up all the corn.

Facing William

29. Megan: I don‟t think that‟s what

harvest //means…

30. Gary: //Yes it is. William squats down and looks for

something in his desk.

31. It‟s a harvest, yes it is.

32. It‟s when a combine goes

through a cornfield.

33. William: You don‟t have to use one

machine.

Stands up, waving hand. Turns to

Kristy.

34. It‟s everything. Leans in toward Kristy. Throws

arms open wide on “everything.”

35. You can just use machines

–

36. there‟s a whole bunch of

machines

37. but look at the book. Pointing. Changes his basis for

knowledge to the text.

38. Kristy: Okay. Deliberate tone as if seeking to

direct the action

39. Megan: I‟m copying what she has. Moves to Kristy‟s side and looks on

paper.

40. Gary: Alls they do is just go

through the cornfield…

41. William: There‟s a whole bunch of

machines

Gesturing with left hand.

42. Megan: No it‟s not. To Gary in response to line 21

43. That‟s picking.

44. Kristy: No, you first go in with a

tractor and then there‟s a

machine that makes it go

up//

To Gary - Faces Gary. Speaks

quietly. Uses right hand to gesture

showing how the machine moves.

45. William: //plow.

Interrupts. Angry voice

354

46. Kristy: //and then the

corn//

Turns to William

47. William: //plow Hits himself on the forehead with

the palm of his hand in exasperation.

K, G and M‟s eye gaze go to

William

48. Kristy: //stays in the little

basket.//

49. William:

//C’mon people, plow.

Writes, then kneels by the desk.

50. Megan: Okay, plow. There! W, K and M write on paper. Gary

moves away behind the girls.

51. There! Five second delay.

52. Gary: What‟d you write there? Kristy erasing her paper. Gary

returns with a paper.

53. Kristy: That‟s not it…

54. It means, it means that//

55. Megan: //Plow. To Kristy and Gary. Stops the

negotiations and forcefully declares

her (William‟s) answer to be the

answer all should accept.

56. It means plow.

57. It means plow, plow, plow,

plow, plow.

Forceful tone. Repeat of line 54 with

repetitions.

58. Kristy: Harvest means a tractor

gets all the corn and they//

Contests Megan‟s definition.

Speaking quietly and explaining to

Gary.

59. Gary: //It‟s

called the combine. It‟s a

combine//

60. William: //No it isn‟t…

Looks up from the floor at Gary.

61. Gary: Yes it is, //

62. Megan: //It‟s definitely… Overlapping with William.

63. William: // It‟s just a

machine//

Overlapping with Megan.

64. Gary: //Yes, but the one

that goes through corn is a

combine.

355

65. William: This isn‟t corn, this is

potatoes//

Stands up and speaks in an

exasperated voice with hands

outstretched.

66. Gary:

//You don‟t even know

what I‟m talking about.

67. William: This isn‟t corn, Pointing to the book. Refers back to

the book [see line 35]

68. this is potatoes.

69. Gary: Yeah, but combines xxxx

70. William: We‟re on “concerned.” Looking at the next vocabulary

word. Stopping the debate.

71. Megan: Yeah, but this has corn

inside doesn‟t it?

72. No.

73. William

and Gary:

No::: not xxx

74. Kristy: What‟s concerned mean?

75. Look it up then define it.

76. What page‟s it on=it‟s

really long.

77. Okay, “he had been over

concerned”

Reading from the text.

78. It means to feel bad//

79. Megan: Yeah, feel bad.

80. William: Concerned, feel bad

81. Feel bad, guys, feel bad. Emphatic, impatient tone.

82. Megan: Gary, Gary, Gary, Gary! It appears that Megan is reading

from something on the desk that is

out of view of the camera. Students

tone of voice changes to playful

from intense.

356

83. Gary: No, Gary, Gary, Gary, Gary

Gary

Imitating line 80 with more

emphasis.

84. Megan: That was Gary, Gary, Gary,

not Gary, Gary, Gary,

Gary, Gary.

First set said with evenness, second

set was shouted.

85. William: Gario!

86. Gary: Yeah, Gario, Gario, Gario.

87. Megan: Gary, Gary, Gary.

88. Gary: Gary, Gary, Gary, Gary,

Gary.

Voice like an echo.

89. Megan: Gary::::::

90. Gary and Gary.

91. It says Gary and Gary. Pointing to something on the desk as

she reads.

92. Let me read it again.

93. It says, Gary and Gary.

94. Gary: Gary, Gary, Gary, Gary,

Gary.

95. William: It says goo.

96. See that says goo. Pointing at desk. All the group turns

to look at it.

97. Megan: Yeah that says goo. Giggling.

98. William: That says goo.

99. That‟s a “u”, goo.

100. Megan: That‟s a “u” not an “a” goo.

101. Megan: There, now it‟s Gary.

102. William: Gary, Gooey.

103. Goo, Goo. Gary is smiling and laughing.

104. Megan: Okay, what‟s xxxx, sorry.

105. What‟s the next word:?

357

106. William: Credit. Tone of voice changes to serious.

William barks out the word.

107. Kristy: Xxxxxx

108. William: Credit. Shouting and facing Kristy.

109. Kristy, xxxxx

110. Kristy: What page is it on?

111. Megan: No:::not credit.

112. William: Yes it is::!

113. Megan: We‟re on the second one.

114. Many

voices:

No::

115. Kristy: We already did it.

116. Megan: I‟m on the second one.

117. What was the second one?

118. Kristy: Concerned=it means feel

bad.

119. Gary: xxxxxx Still doing the word play on his

name.

120. Gooey.

121. William: Okay, I know what credit

means.

122. Gary: //xxxxxxx Overlapping with William – Making

a comment to William in a playful

tone.

123. William: No::: Playfully hits Gary with his pencil.

124. Gary: Gooey. Chuckling.

125. William: Okay, credit means you get

something and you don‟t

have to pay for it.

126. We had that one on our

spelling test.

127. Gary: What, what do you mean?

358

128. Megan: It means get free stuff!!

129. William: No, it means you buy

something but you pay for

it later.

130. Kristy: That‟s not what it means in

the story.

Uses William‟s previous argument

against him.

131. William: We can put that. Defends his answer. Doesn‟t‟

consult the text.

132. No you can use that

because the words are from

this story.

133. Megan: Is this like a bomb that‟s

going to blow up on us

sometime?

General laughter.

134. Is this a bomb that‟s going

to blow us up?

135. William: Yeah, it‟s like kaboom.

136. Gary: Mrs. Graham, what is this? To Researcher (using incorrect

name). Turns to the researcher and

holds up digital recorder.

137. Researche

r:

It‟s a tape recorder.

138. You can leave it right there

on the table.

Taking recorder from Gary and

placing it on a desk in the middle of

the group.

139. Gary: Chicka boom, chicka boom

140. Megan: Hello, bomb. Into the digital recorder microphone.

141. Gary: It‟s not a bomb.

142. William: Hey bomb, what are ya

doin‟?

Speaking to digital recorder.

143. Kristy: It means, umm.

144. Megan: Does it mean that you have

to pay for it?

145. Teacher: We‟ll talk about that in just

a minute.

Comment directed to ???

359

146. Everybody in their seats. To entire class.

147. Megan: It means, umm, and history.

148. What‟s history?

149. Kristy: I‟m going to put//

150. William: //You‟re

history, bomb.

Jumps up in the air and makes a fist

like he is going to hit the digital

recorder. Megan giggles.

151. You‟re history! Three second delay. Gets another

giggle from Megan

152. Gary: It‟s not a history bomb.

153. Willliam: I am Magnum Opus. (sound

like screeching wheels)

154. Gary: What‟s a Magnum Opus?

155. It‟s like it‟s gonna say

rrrrrrr.

156. Teacher: Boys, I‟m waiting for you.

157. You‟ve had adequate time

to be in your seats.

158. William, just leave that be. Three second delay. Talking about

digital recorder.

159. William: Okay.

160. Teacher: Alright, as I walking

around I noticed that many

of you had plenty of time to

get through definitions.

(37:25)

161. Let‟s open up your Stone

Fox notebook

162. and I want to hear and have

you share some of the

definitions that you came

up with.

163. Okay, let‟s talk about the

first one, “harvest.”

360

164. Okay, let‟s find where it

was used in our book and

let‟s read that together.

165. It was on the very first page

of Chapter 2.

166. “The Harvest.” Reading from text. Reads title of the

chapter.

167. “The harvest was just

weeks away.”

168. Is harvest a noun or a verb?

169. How is it used in this

sentence?

170. Sam.

171. Sam: A noun Raised hand to be called on.

172. Teacher: Okay, it‟s a noun.

173. It‟s something.

174. “The” is the key word

there.

175. It tells you it‟s “the”

harvest.

176. It tells you it‟s something

that happens,

177. and what do you do at a

harvest?

178. What will we find a farmer

doing at harvest time?

179. Korey?

180. Korey: Digging.

Raised hand to be called on.

181. Teacher: Okay. So is, is harvest

actually digging?

182. Sx: Uh uh. [negative]

183. Teacher: Or is it a time that you

would dig up the crops?

184. Which one do you think?

185. It was a noun.

186. Are you going to be

digging when you harvest

361

187. or is that a time when you

dig?

188. Alan.

189. Alan: Um (3 sec) a time when

you dig?

190. Teacher: Okay we already discussed

that “harvest” in this

sentence is used as a noun

191. So, when you were

describing what harvest is,

192. should we say that harvest

is a time for digging up the

crops,

193. or is it digging up the

crops?

194. Is harvest something that

you‟re doing?

195. Sx: Yes,

196. Teacher: It‟s a time when they dig up

the crops.

Writes on board: “A time to dig”

197. Okay.

198. You guys were really close,

199. you did a nice job,

200. but it‟s a time or a season.

201. and I guess depending on

how you use it,

202. it could be used as a verb,

203. but in our book, Gives evidence for which definition

counts. The text is the authority for

definitions. William‟s approach is

sanctioned.

204. they did not use it as a verb,

Megan.

205. They used it as a noun.

362

Appendix C: Transcription Conventions

363

Transcription Conventions

‘?’ rising intonation

‘.’ falling intonation

‘=’ latched utterance; next utterance follows immediately without pause or hesitation

‘:’, ‘::’, ‘:::’ elongated portions of words

‘//’ overlap of utterances

[2.0] silences, timed to the nearest second

Italics – words spoken with increased volume or emphasis

xxx undecipherable utterance

364

Appendix D: Count of Recorded and Analyzed Events

365

Events

In Entire Corpus Transcribed and

Analyzed

Video-recorded

Classroom

Sessions

52

10

Student

Interviews

24

11

Focus Teacher

Interviews

6

6

Administrator

Interviews

3

3

K-3 Teacher

Interviews

5

4

Parent

Interview

1

1

Table 7. Count of Recorded and Analyzed Events

366

LIST OF REFERENCES

Adam, B. (2006). Time. Theory, Culture and Society, 23(2-3). 119-138.

Adam, B. (2009). Culture future matters: An exploration in the spirit of Max Weber‟s

methodological writings. Time & Society, 18(1), 7-25.

Agha, A. (2007). Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Allington, R. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-

based programs. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Allington, R. (2006). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-

based programs (2nd

ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and philosophy, and other essays. (Brewer, B., Trans.).

London: New Left Books.

Alvermann, D. (2001). Reading adolescents‟ reading identities: Looking back to see

ahead. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(8), 676-690.

Alvermann, D. (2006). Struggling adolescent readers: A cultural construction. In A.

McKeough, L. Phillips, V. Timmons & J.L. Lupart (Eds.), Understanding literacy

development: A global view. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Alvermann, D., Hinchman, K., Moore, D., Phelps, S. & Waff, D. (Eds.). (2006).

Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents’ lives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

American Census Bureau. American Fact Finder.

http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en, Accessed October 30,

2008.

Au, K. (1980). Participation structures in reading lesson with Hawaiian children.

Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 11(20), 91-115.

http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en

367

Au, K. & Kawakami, A. (1984). Vygotskian perspectives on discussion process in small-

group reading lessons. In P. Peterson & L.C. Wilkinson (Eds.). The social

construction of instruction (pp. 209-225). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Auerbach, E. (1989). Toward a social-contextual approach to family literacy. Harvard

Educational Review, 59, 165-181.

August, D. & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth, Middlesex:

Penguin.

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. London: Routledge.

Berliner, D.C. & Biddle, B.J. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the

attack on America’s public schools. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Biancarosa, G. & Snow C. (2004). Reading next: A vision for action and research in

middle and high school literacy. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent

Education.

Bishop, R.S. (1992). Multicultural literature for children: Making informed choices. In V.

Harris (Ed.), Teaching multicultural literature in grades K-8 (pp. 39-51).

Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Bloome, D. (1993). Necessary indeterminacy: Issues in the microethnographic study of

reading as a social process. Journal of Reading Research, 16, 98-111.

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.

Bloome, D., Katz, L., Solsken, J., Willett, J., Wilson-Keenan, J. (2000). Interpellations of

family/community and classroom literacy practices. The Journal of Educational

Research, 93(3), 155-163.

Bloome, D., Puro, P. & Theodorou, E. (1989). Procedural display and classroom lessons.

Curriculum Inquiry, 19, 265-291.

368

Bourdieu, P. (1972/1977). Outline of a theory of practice (Nice, R., Trans.). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1972).

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice (Nice, R., Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press. (Original work published 1980).

Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production. Cambridge: Polity.

Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J.C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (2nd

ed.). London: Sage Publications.

Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, J. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Brenneis, D. (2003). Comments presented as discussant for D. Holland and K. Leander at

the biennial conference of the Society for Psychological Anthropology.

Butler, J. (1997). Excitable speech: A politics of the performative. London: Routledge.

Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Chall, J. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw Hill.

Chall, J. (1996). Stages of reading development (2nd

ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt

Brace.

Chall, J. & Jacobs, V. (2003). The classic study on poor children‟s fourth-grade slump.

American Educator, 27(1), 14-15, 44.

Chall, J., Jacobs, V., & Baldwin, L. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall

behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Clark, L. (2006). Power through voicing others: Girls‟ positioning of boys in literature

circle discussions. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(1), 53-79.

Collins, J. (1994, April). Dialogue and resistance in small-group reading-writing

instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

369

Conley, M, Freidhoff, J., Sherry, M. & Tuckey, S.F. (2008). Meeting the challenge of

adolescent literacy: Research we have research we need. New York: The

Guilford Press.

Cook-Gumperz, J. (Ed.). (1986). The social construction of literacy, 2nd

ed. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the

design of social futures. London: Routledge.

Davies, B. & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. In B.

Davies, A body of writing 1990-1999 (pp. 87-105). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira

Press.

Davies, B. & Hunt, R. (2000). Classroom competencies and marginal positionings. In B.

Davies, A body of writing 1990-1999 (pp. 107-131). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira

Press.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York:

New Press.

Diller, D. (1999). Opening the dialogue: Using culture as a tool in teaching young

African-American children. The Reading Teacher, 52, 820-828.

Dills, R.S. (1881). History of Greene County, together with historic notes on the

Northwest. Dayton, OH: Odeli and Mayer Publishers.

Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Duranti, A. (Ed.). (2001). Key terms in language and culture. Malden, MA: Blackwell

Publishers.

Elley, W.B. (1992). How in the world do students read? IEA study of reading literacy.

The Hague, the Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of

Educational Achievement.

Evaldsson, A.-C. (2003). Throwing like a girl? Situating gender differences in physicality

across game contexts. Childhood, 10, 475-497.

Evaldsson, A.-C. (2004). Shifting moral stances: Morality and gender in same-sex and

cross-sex game interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37),

331-363.

370

Evaldsson, A.-C. (2007). Accounting for friendship: Moral ordering and category

membership in preadolescent girls‟ relational talk. Research on Language and

Social Interaction, 40(4), 377-404.

Fairbanks, C. & Ariail, M. (2006). The role of social and cultural resources in literacy

and schooling: Three contrasting cases. Research in the Teaching of English,

40(3), 310-354.

Fairbanks, C. & Broughton, M. (2003). Literacy lessons: The convergence of

expectations, practices and classroom culture. Journal of Literacy Research,

34(4), 391-428.

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research.

London: Routledge.

Finders, M.J. (1997). Just girls: Hidden literacies and life in junior high. New York:

Teacher‟s College Press.

Flanigan, B. (2006). Upper Ohio Valley Speech, in R. Abramson & J. Haskell, (Eds.)

Encyclopedia of Appalachia. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press.

Foucault, M. (1994). What is enlightenment? In P. Rabinow (Ed.). Michel Foucault:

Essential works, vol. 1 (Ethics), (pp. 303-319). Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Gaskin, I, Gensemer, E.W. & Six, L. (2003). Tailoring a middle school language arts

class to meet the needs of struggling readers. In R. McCormack & J. Paratore

(Eds.). After early intervention, then what?: Teaching struggling readers in

grades 3 and beyond. Newark: DE: International Reading Association.

Gee, J.P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies (2nd

ed.). London: Taylor & Francis.

Gee, J.P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York:

Routledge.

Gee, J.P. (2000). The New Literacy Studies: From “socially situated” to the work of the

social. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton & R. Ivanic (Eds.). Situated literacies: Reading

and writing in context. (pp. 180-196). London: Routledge.

Gee, J.P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling.

New York: Routledge.

Geertz, C., (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

371

Geertz, C., (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New

York: Basic Books.

Gilmore, P. (1987). Sulking, stepping and tracking: The effects of attitude assessment on

access to literacy. In D. Bloome (Ed.), Literacy and schooling (pp. 98-120),

Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Goodman, K., Goodman, Y. & Paulson, E. (2009). Beyond word recognition: How

retrospective and future perspectives on miscue analysis can inform our teaching.

In J. Hoffman & Y. Goodman (Eds.). Changing literacies for changing times: An

historical perspective on the future of reading research, public policy, and

classroom practices (pp. 146-161). New York: Routledge.

Goodman. Y. & Marek, (1996). Retrospective miscue analysis: Revaluing readers and

reading. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen Publishers.

Goodwin, M.H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among Black

children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Goodwin, M.H. (1995). Co-construction in girls‟ hopscotch. Research on Language and

Social Interaction, 28), 261-281.

Goodwin, M.H. (2001). Organizing participation in cross-sex jump rope: Situating gender

differences within longitudinal studies of activities. Research on Language and

Social Interaction ,34, 75-106.

Goodwin, M.H. (2007). Participation and embodied action in preadolescent girls‟

assessment activity. Research in Language and Social Interactions, 40(4), 353-

375.

Goodwin, M. H. & Kyratzis, A. (2007). Children socializing children: Practices for

negotiating the social order among peers. Research on Language and Social

Interaction, 40(4), 279-289.

Green, J. (1983). Exploring classroom discourse: Linguistic perspectives on teaching-

learning processes. Educational Psychologist, 18, 180-199.

Green, J. & Wallat, C. (1981).Mapping instructional conversations. In J. Green & C.

Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings (pp. 161-195).

Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Grissmer, D., Kirby, S., Berends, M. & Williamson, S. (1994). Student achievement and

the changing American family. Santa Monica, CA: RAND: Institute on Education

and Training.

372

Griswold, O. (2007). Achieving authority: Discursive practices in Russian girls‟ pretend

play. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 40(4), 291-319.

Gumperz, J. (1982a). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gumperz, J. (1982b). Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Gumperz, J. & Cook-Gumperz, J. (1986). Interactional sociolinguistics in the study of

schooling. In J. Cook-Gumperz (Ed.). The social construction of literacy. (pp. 50-

75). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hall, L. (2006). Anything but lazy: New understandings about struggling readers,

teaching and text. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(4), 424-426.

Hall, L. (2007a). Understanding the silence: Struggling readers discuss decisions about

reading expository text. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(3), 132-141.

Hall, L. (2007b). Bringing television back to the bedroom: Transactions between a

seventh-grade struggling reader and her mathematics teacher. Reading Research

and Instruction, 46(4), 287-314.

Hall, L. (2009). Struggling reader, struggling teacher: An examination of student-teacher

transactions with reading instruction and text in social studies. Research in the

Teaching of English, 43(3), 286-309.

Harré, R. & van Langenhove , L. (Eds.), (1999). Positioning theory: Moral contexts of

intentional action. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Harris V.J. (1993). Teaching multicultural literature. Norwood, MA: Christopher-

Gordon.

Hartley, L. and Preston, D. (1999). The names of US English: Valley girl, cowboy,

Yankee, normal, nasal and ignorant, in Bex, T. and Watts, R. (1999). Standard

English: The widening debate. London: Routledge.

Heath, S.B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and at school.

Language in Society, 11(1), 49-76.

Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and

classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

373

Heron, A. (2003). A study of agency: Multiple constructions of choice and decision

making in an inquiry-based summer school program for struggling readers.

Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46(7), 568-579.

Holland, D., Lachicotte Jr., W., Skinner, D. & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in

cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Holland, D. & Lave, J. (Eds.) (2001). History in person: Enduring struggles, contentious

practice, intimate identities. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.

Holland, D. & Leander, K. (2004). Ethnographic studies of positioning and subjectivity:

An introduction. Ethos, 32(2), pp. 127-139.

Hull, G. & Zacher, J. (2007). Enacting identities: An ethnography of a job training

program, Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 7(1), 71-

102.

Hymes, D. (1974). The foundations of sociolinguistics: Sociolinguistic ethnography.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Johnson, R. (1993) (Ed.). Introduction. In Bourdieu, P. The field of cultural production.

(pp. 1-28). Cambridge: Polity.

Johnstone, B. (2008). Discourse analysis (2nd

edition). Malden, MA: Blackwell

Publishing.

Jones, L. & Somekh, B. (2005). Observation. In B. Somekh, & C. Lewin. Research

methods in the social sciences (Chapter 16, pp 138-145). London: Sage.

Keller, J. (2007, January 25). Both sides of the street: Life as a „Townie.‟ Cedars, p. 5.

Kos, R. (1991). Persistence in reading disabilities: The voices of four middle school

students. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 875-895.

Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.

Kuhn, M. & Stahl, S. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial

practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 13-21.

Kyratzis, A. (2004). Talk and interaction among children and the co-construction of peer

groups and peer culture. Annual Review of Anthropology, 33, 625-649.

374

Kyratzis, A. (2007). Using social organizational affordances of role playing in American

preschool girls‟ interactions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 40(4),

625-649.

Kyratizis, A., Marx, T., & Wade, E.R.(2001). Preschoolers‟ communicative competence:

Register shift in the marking of power in different contexts of friendship group

talk. First Language, 21, 387-431.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American

children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Langer, J.A. (2001). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high schools students to read

and write well. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 837-880.

Lankshear, C. & Knobel, C. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom

learning. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.

Lave, J. (1996). Teaching, as learning, in practice. Mind, Culture and Activity, 3(3), 149-

164.

Leander, K. (2004). “They took out the wrong context: Uses of time-space in the practice

of positioning. Ethos, 32(2), PP. 188-213.

Lewis, C. (2001). Negotiating classroom culture in peer-led literature discussions: What

are our social roles? In C. Lewis, Literary practices as social acts: Power, status,

and cultural norms in the classroom (pp. 85-118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Lewis, C., Enciso, P. & Moje, E.B. (2007). Reframing sociocultural research on literacy:

Identity, agency and power. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lotman, Yu.M. (1990). Universe of the mind: A semiotic theory of culture. Bloomington,

IN: Indiana University Press (translated by Ann Shukman).

Lyons, C. (2003). Teaching struggling readers: How to use brain-based research to

maximize learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

MacLachlan, P. (1985). Sarah, Plain and Tall. New York: HarperCollins Publisher.

Mahar, D. (2001). Positioning in a middle school culture: Gender, race, social class and

power. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(3), 200-209.

Maton, K. (2008). Habitus. In M. Grenfell (Ed.). Pierre Bourdieu: Key concepts (pp.49-

66). Stocksfield, UK: Acumen.

375

McCarthey, S. (2002). Students’ identities and literacy learning. Newark, DE:

International Reading Association.

McCarthey, S.J. & Moje, S.B. (2002). Identity matters. Reading Research Quarterly,

37(2).

McDermott, R. (2000). Materials for confrontation with genius as a personal identity.

Ethos, 32(2), pp. 278-288.

McDermott, R. & Varenne, H. (1995). Culture as disability. Anthropology & Education

Quarterly, 26, 324-348.

McDermott, R., Goldman, S., and Varenne, H. (2006). The cultural work of learning

disabilities, Educational Researcher, 35, 12-17.

McGinley, W. & Kamberelis, G. (1996). Maniac Magee and Ragtime Tumpie: Children

negotiating self and world through reading and writing. Research in the Teaching

of English, 30, 75-113.

Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge. Clevedon: Multilingual

Matters.

Michaels, S. (1986). Narrative presentations: An oral preparation for literacy with first-

graders. In J. Cook-Gumperz (Ed.). The social construction of literacy.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mitchell, J.C. (1984). Typicality and the case study. In R. Ellen (ed.) Ethnographic

research: A guide to general conduct (pp. 238-241). New York: Academic Press.

Moje, E. and Dillon, D. (2006). Adolescent identities as demanded by science classroom

discourse communities. In D. Alvermann, K. Hinchman, D. Moore, S. Phelps &

D. Waff (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents’ lives, (2nd

ed., pp.

85-106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Moje, E. and Lewis, C. (2007). Examining opportunities to learn literacy: The role of

critical sociocultural literacy research. In C. Lewis, P. Enciso & E. Moje (Eds.),

Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency and power. (pp.

15-48). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Moje, E.and Luke, A. (2009). Literacy and identity: Examining the metaphors in history

and contemporary research. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(4), 415-437.

376

Moll, L. (1988). Some key issues in teaching Latino students. Language Arts, 65, 465-

472.

Moore, D., Alvermann, D, & Hinchman, K. (Eds.) Struggling adolescent readers: A

collection of teaching strategies. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Moore, D., Bean, T., Birdyshaw, D. & Rycik, J. (1999). Adolescent literacy: A position

statement. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Murdoch, J.M. (1987). Cedarville College, a century of commitment: Commissioned on

the occasion of the centennial of Cedarville College. Cedarville, OH: Cedarville

College.

O‟Brien, D. (2006). “Struggling” adolescents‟ engagement in multimediating: Countering

the institutional construction of incompetence. In D. Alvermann, K. Hinchman, D.

Moore, S. Phelps & D. Waff (Eds.). Reconceptualizing the literacies in

adolescents’ lives (2nd

ed., pp. 29-46 ). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

O‟Brien, D., Beach, R., & Scharber, C. (2007). “Struggling” middle schoolers:

Engagement and literate competence in a reading writing intervention class.

Reading Psychology, 28, 51-73.

Oldfather, P. (2002). Learning from students about overcoming motivation problems in

literacy learning: A cross-study analysis and synthesis. Reading & Writing

Quarterly, 18, 343-352.

Palumbo, A. & Sanacore, J. (2009). Helping struggling middle school literacy learners

achieve success. Clearing House, 82(6), 275-280.

Poole, D. (2008). Interactional differentiation in the mixed-ability group: A glimpse of

two struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 228-250.

Porter, S.B. (2005). Learning about learners: Struggling readers in a fourth-grade

literature discussion group. In P. Linder, M.B. Sampson, J.R. Dugan & B.

Brancato (Eds.). Building bridges to literacy. Logan, UT: The College Reading

Association.

Powers, S. (2002). „Real ways of talking‟ and school talking: One Appalachian student‟s

perception of teacher discourse during writing conferences, Reading Horizons, 43,

(2).

Purcell-Gates, V. (1995). Other people’s words: The cycle of low literacy. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

377

Richardson, E. (2003). African American literacies. London: Routledge.

Richardson, E. (2008). African American Literacies. In B. Street ( Ed.) & N. Hornberger

(Gen. Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and education, 2nd

ed., vol. 2. New York:

Springer.

Rogers, R. (2004). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. New York:

Routledge.

Rose, M. (1989). Lives on the boundary: The struggles and achievements of American’s

underprepared. New York: Free Press.

Sanacore, J. (2002). Struggling literacy learners benefit from lifetime literacy efforts.

Reading Psychology, 23(2), 67-86.

Sanacore, J. & Palumbo, A. (2009). Understanding the fourth-grade slump: Our point of

view. Educational Forum, 73, 67-74.

Saville-Troike, M. (2003). The ethnography of communication: An introduction (3rd

Ed.).

Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Sheldon, A. (1996). You can be the baby brother, but you aren‟t born yet: Preschool

girls‟ negation for power and access in pretend play. Research on Language and

Social Interaction, 29, 57-80.

Siegel, J. (2006). Keeping creoles and dialects out of the classroom: Is it justified? In S.J.

Nero, Dialects, Englishes, Creoles and education (pp. 39-67). New York:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Slater, W. & Horstman, F. (2002). Teaching reading and writing to struggling middle

school and high school students: The case for reciprocal teaching. Preventing

School Failure, 46(4), 163-166.

Snow, C., Barnes, W. Chandler, J., Goodman, I., & Hemphill, L. (1991). Unfulfilled

expectations: Home and school influences on literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Snow, C., Porche, M., Tabors, P. & Harris, S.R., (2007). Is literacy enough?: Pathways

to academic success for adolescents. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooke Publishing

Company.

378

Stanovich K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: some consequences of individual

differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21:4, 360-

407.

Sterponi, L. (2007). Clandestine interactional reading: Intertexutality and double-voicing

under the desk. Linguistics and Education, 18 (2007), 1-23.

Stierer, B. & Bloome, D. (1994). Reading words: a commentary on key terms in reaching

of reading. In B. Street & A. Lefstein (2007). Literacy: An advanced resource

book (pp. 52-55). London: Routledge.

Street, B. (Ed.), (1993). Cross-cultural approaches to literacy. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Street, B. (1997). The implications of the New Literacy Studies for literacy education.

English in Education, 31, 26-39.

Street, B. (2003). What‟s “New” in new literacy studies? Critical approaches to literacy

in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2).

Street, B. & Lefstein, A. (2007). Literacy: An advanced resource book. London:

Routledge.

Street, B. & Street, J. (1991).The schooling of literacy. In D. Barton and R. Ivanic (Eds.).

Writing in the community (pp. 143-166). London: Sage.

Tannen, D. (Ed.) (1981). Analyzing discourse: Text and talk. Washington, DC:

Georgetown University Press.

Taylor, D. (1993). Family literacy: Resisting deficit models. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 550-

553.

Triplett, C. (2007). The social construction of “struggle”: Influences of school literacy

contexts, curriculum and relationships, Journal of Literacy Research, 39 (1), 95-

126.

Wells, G. (Ed.) (2000). Action, talk and text: Learning and teaching through inquiry.

New York: Teacher‟s College Press.

Wertsch, J.V. (2002). Voices of collective remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

379

Wilkinson, L. & Silliman, E. (2000). Classroom language and literacy learning. In M.

Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.) Handbook of Reading

Research (Vol. 3, pp.337-360). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wolfram, W. and Schilling-Estes, N. (2006). American English (2nd

ed). Malden, MA:


Wortham, S. (2004). From good student to outcast: The emergence of a classroom

identity. Ethos, 32(2), pp. 164-187.

Wortham, S. (2007). Learning identity: The joint emergence of social identification and

academic learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Worthy, J. Patterson, E., Salas, R., Prater, S. & Turner, M. (2002). More than just

reading: The human factor in reaching resistant readers. Reading Research and

Instruction, 41(2), 177-201.

Zacher, J. (2008a). Analyzing children‟s social positioning and struggles for recognition

in a classroom literacy event. Research in the Teaching of English, 43, 12-41.

Zacher, J. (2008b). Social hierarchies and identity politics. In J. Albright & A. Luke

(Eds.). Pierre Bourdieu and literacy education (pp. 252-278). New York:

Routledge.

Zerubavel, Eviatar (2003). Time maps: Collective memory and the social shape of the

past. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Socially Constituting Middle Childhood Students As Struggling ...

Documents

Transcript of Socially Constituting Middle Childhood Students As Struggling ...