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
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.
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 4. Stephen’s Reading Group Segment 2 ........................................... 148
Transcript 5. Stephen’s Reading Group Segment 3 ........................................... 150
Transcript 6. Stephen’s Reading Group Segment 4 ........................................... 155
Transcript 7. Partner Reading Segment 1........................................................... 166
Transcript 8. Partner Reading Segment 2........................................................... 169
Transcript 9. Partner Reading Segment 3........................................................... 171
Transcript 10. Partner Reading Segment 4......................................................... 172
Transcript 11. Partner Reading Segment 5......................................................... 173
Transcript 12. Partner Reading Segment 6......................................................... 175
Transcript 13. Partner Reading Segment 7......................................................... 177
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.
(Interview, 5/19/09)
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.
(Interview, 5/27/09)
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”
(Interview, 5/27/08).
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
(Interview, 5/7/09).
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
Speaker Utterance Notes
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
Transcript 2 continued
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
Transcript 2 continued
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
Transcript 2 continued
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
Transcript 3 continued
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
Transcript 3 continued
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
Transcript 4 continued
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
Transcript 5. Steven‟s Reading Group - Segment 3
151
Transcript 5 continued
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
Transcript 5 continued
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
Transcript 5 continued
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
Transcript 6. Steven‟s Reading Group - Segment 4
156
Transcript 6 continued
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
Transcript 6 continued
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
Speaker Utterance Notes
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.
Speaker Utterance Notes
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.
Transcript 8. Partner Reading - Segment 2
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
Speaker Utterance Notes
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.
Transcript 9. Partner Reading - Segment 3
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.
Transcript 10. Partner Reading - Segment 4
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.
Speaker Utterance Notes
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.
Transcript 11. Partner Reading - Segment 5
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.
Speaker Utterance Notes
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
Transcript 12. Partner Reading - Segment 6
176
Transcript 12 continued
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.
Speaker Utterance Notes
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.
Transcript 13. Partner Reading - Segment 7
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.
Speaker Utterance Notes
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
Transcript 14 continued
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
Transcript 14 continued
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
Transcript 14 continued
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.
Speaker Utterance Notes
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
Transcript 15 continued
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
Transcript 15 continued
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
Transcript 16 continued
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
Transcript 16 continued
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
Speaker Utterance Notes
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
Transcript 17 continued
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
Speaker Utterance Notes
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
Transcript 18 continued
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
Transcript 18 continued
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
Transcript 18 continued
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
Transcript 18 continued
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
Transcript 18 continued
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
Transcript 18 continued
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:
Speaker Utterance Notes
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
Transcript 19 continued
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
Transcript 19 continued
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
Transcript 19 continued
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.
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
Mapleton Dialect Examples
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
Mapleton Dialect Examples
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
Mapleton Dialect Examples
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:
Blackwell Publishing.
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:
Blackwell Publishing.
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.
Speaker Utterance Notes
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
Speaker Utterance Notes
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.
332
Video Transcript – Science Game
Speaker Utterance Notes
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.
Speaker Utterance Notes
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.
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
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.
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:
Blackwell Publishing.
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.
Top Related