Language Study and Varieties of English

Ball, A. F., & Alim, H. S. (2006). Preparation, pedagogy, policy, and power: "Brown," the "King" case, and the struggle for equal language rights. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 105(2), 104-124.

Author:

Date: 2006 -

Research Questions: “What needs to happen before the close of another half-century in order for us to realize the full potential of Brown?” (p. 105)

Context (need for study): 50 year anniversary of 1954 Brown v. Board of Education – look again at successes and failures of court-ordered segregation. Urgency of not subjugating this generation to unequal educational opportunities. “Revisit 25 years of language and racial politics since ‘the Martin Luther King Black English case’” (p. 105).

Methods: Researched essay

Findings: 3 action points for language education: “the development and implementation of (1) inclusive, comprehensive, systematic reform in language education policy; (2) critical language pedagogies; and (3) teacher preparation programs in language and literacy education” (p. 105).

            Historically neglected linguistic dimensions of the Black American tradition:

            Ogbu (1978, 1992) notes that Blacks were involuntary immigrants – their linguistic heritage was cut off (p. 106). Kept away from others who spoke their home languages – isolation to keep powerless. “When did speaking black language come to be seen as a problem?” (p. 107) – ALWAYS, but the result of Brown lead to many sociolinguistic studies of Black language in 1960s. White teachers were not prepared! Black language discourse is underscored by racism and race relations discourses.

           

            Legal contexts and consequences of Borwn and King:

            For many, desegregation was a SLOW process.

            “Students at the beginning of the 21^st century are once again separated by race and language in U.S. schools, only this time the segregation is caused by an increasingly complex array of social, economic, and legal issues (Frankenberg & Lee, 2002)” (p. 109). Wow – “‘Although only 5% of segregated white schools are in areas of concentrated poverty, over 80% of black and Latino schools are’ (Balkin, 2001, p. 6)” (p. 109). The King case ruled that attitudes (even if unconscious) that were demeaning to Black students’ home language would be a turn off to learning and “constituted a language barrier that impeded the students’ educational progress (Memorandum 1381)” (p. 110). How can teachers rationally take Black language into account when teaching Black students? How do you prepare teachers to be effective with ALL students?

            Educational responses:

            Native Hawaiians have a similar plight to Black Americans, but there is at least some respect and dual language recognition in schools for the Hawaiians (p. 112). Call for a a united front in forming a national language policy; look at the Conference on College Composition and Communication – (1) teach “mainstream academic language varieties”; (2) home language as legitimate is to be used in teaching alongside academic language; and (3) promotion of learning a second language (p. 113). Teachers must have a “critical language awareness” through pedagogical instruction that invades their planning and fights linguisism, no longer seeing students as deficient but rather linguistically marginalized (p. 115). New Literacy Studies and Critical Language Awareness makes visible the invisible, often well-meaning attempts on behalf of teachers that can silence marginalized voices “in white public space” (p. 116). As seen in the Linguistic Profiling project at Stanford, when students see that language can and is used against them, they can consciously “transform the conditions under which they live” (p. 117). Preservice teachers often are not able to participate in language diversity courses (if offered) because of rigorous structure of coursework

Discussion (my connection):

            I appreciated that on p. 114, the authors quote Baugh (1998) in putting responsibility on native speakers of Standard English as well: “’They must learn to be tolerant of those who do not speak Standard English’ (p. 297; emphasis in the original).”

            As teachers, we have to change the way we speak. I think of the intentionality I had to have while cognitively coaching Intern Teachers and trying to use Peter Johnston’s ideas from Choice Words. It is not enough to demand more out of our students and try to be a good/nice person in the class, we also have to live it, to speak it in the classroom!

Chisolm, J. S., & Godley, A. J.. (2011). Learning about language through inquiry-based discussion: Three bidialectal high school students’ talk about dialect variation, identity, and power. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4), 430-468.

Author:

Date: 2011 -

Research Questions: How do three bidialectal African American high school students learn about language variation, identity, and power through their participation in small-group, inquiry-based discussion? How do students discuss the two dialects they speak? “How does students’ engagement in an inquiry-based discussion about language variation, identity, and power support their sociolinguistic content learning?” (p. 432).

Context (need for study): Gap in scholarship of empirical studies, “documenting students’ engagement in classroom activities designed to address” language diversity and power issues (p. 431). 11^th grade, regular-track English students from mostly Black school on edges of the Rust Belt. African American Vernacular English/Standard English

Methods: “Part of a larger, design-based study of inquiry-based grammar and language instruction” (p. 438).  Worked with four ELA teachers to watch how students respond to new kinds of grammar instruction. 2 year study. “Analyzed audio recordings of classroom talk, field notes, and students’ writings for features of AAVE and SE” (p. 438). Researcher and teachers designed, implemented, and revised an inquiry-based unit about dialects, identity, and power. This study comes from focusing on one small-group discussion in the second year. Tracked “(a) the frequency and distribution of argument moves and (b) the level of disciplinary alignment and specificity of students’ claims  and evidence as students’ collective argumentation developed over time” (p. 441). Created graphical representation of argument moves for each discussion question. Conversations coded for language variation, identity, and power as well as how specific they were in their examples and disciplinary alignment. Interviews months after the small-group discussion.

Findings:

            Students’ argumentation aligned with “current perspectives in the discipline”; discussion lead to specifics in language variation and identity; and students only focused on power structures that influenced their own experiences and roadblocks as bidialectics.

            Healthy quality of discussion from teacher framing disagree/debate against arguing as a way to get at productive discussions. Teacher questions and specificity are key in guiding the group talk. Move from getting cliché answers by asking to specify by explaining their own situations and providing examples. Considering and reconsidering who they are and what is fair, but when made to disagree with each other, they have to listen to one another.

            Families expect formality when speaking with elders. Students did not ask why some ways of talking were considered rude or mannered or why everyone judges other on their language use – they did not realize the critical language awareness (Janks, 1999) that is essential in ELA language instruction (Alim, 2005; Delpit, 1988; Godley & Minnici, 2008) (p. 459).

            Through inquiry-based instruction, students were able to evaluate proposed evidence for claims and counter claims, especially with specificity in the teacher’s question (p. 460).

Discussion (my connection):

            I think that I and other teachers avoid controversial discussions in the classroom because we don’t want to lose control. I don’t know what will come out of a student’s mouth, and I do not think I know how best to deal with what can turn hateful or even just rude, but I do value discussion based on conflict, and I must get a hold of Johnson and Johnson (2009) to look at what they call “the instructional power of conflict” (p. 37) (p. 453).

            The students seemed to come away with a sense that their language is deeply tied to their identity, but fall back on AAVE as “slang” that would be considered rude or unprofessional – they still have at least a piece of a deficit view of their own language use. You can see this again in an interview with one of the students who thought that her transcribed language looked awful.

            A most interesting claim is that “the students did not fully or primarily identify as speakers of AAVE” (p. 462), and the resulting remarks are important. It is never safe to assume that students will identify themselves the way you may want to classify them. You run the risk of isolating individuals who actually live in a whole, globalized, and multilingual contexts.

Davila, B. (2012). Indexicality and “Standard” edited American English: Examining the link between conceptions of standardness and perceived authorial identity. Written Communication, 29(2), 180-207.

Author:

Date: 2012 -

Research Questions: What patterns are evident in the association of White students as privileged with written standardness and simultaneously disassociate the underrepresented from American English? “As composition instructors read anonymous student writing, how do they infer details about authorial identity; what aspects of written language do they perceive as indexical (such as words or phrases, sentence structures, rhetorical choices, topic); and how do they understand and talk about the relationship between language and identity?” (p. 182).

Context (need for study): Linking language and identity = indexicality. Writing instructors are at conflict – resist Standard Edited American English as a gatekeeper, but expect that students will be “required” later on to actually have mastered SEAE. “It is impossible for dialect to be completely unmarked” (p. 181). Gap in looking “at the ways that particular language features do or do not signal specific identities” (p. 182).

Methods: Interviews with composition instructors about readings of anonymous student texts.

Findings: “Indexicality and standardness are mutually informative: The non/standard features of student texts operate as indexicals for student-author identities just as perceived student-author identities influence the reading of a texas as non/standard” (p. 180). Student texts are expected to be produced in SEAE and are received under that light.

            Instructors make guesses about student identity in regards to class, race and gender through particular language features. Conventions were most common associators with class as well as tone and diction under the assumption that upper-class students had more rigor, training, and expectation with high standards in these categories. Linking better writing to better preparedness, White students are stereotyped as better writers as receivers of better educations – tied to class. Urban and inner city are meant to refer to Black students in contrast to middle class (unspoken White). Race is also tied to grammar, dialect, and diction all on the sentence-level. Instructors found AAVE to be error, not grammatical difference of dialect. Gender come through in topic and organization: linear organization to be male and storytelling through examples to be female.

Discussion (my connection):

            Look at Matsuda (2006) and McArthur (1992)  for ideas about “linguistic homogeneity” and combating the falsity that SEAE as unmarked and “normal”.

            It is tough not to be biased about papers. I would hold on to student papers that I expected to be good for times that I felt like I needed a pick-me-up or would save them until the end because they would “go faster”. Even knowing the name of the student (or if you have your students turn work in anonymously – the writing workshop teacher knows what you’re working on anyway) can give benefit or take away from the same writing depending on the relationship with or expectations from the student.

Grammar

Godley, A. J., Carpenter, B. D., & Werner, C. A. (2007). "I'll speak in proper slang": Language ideologies in a daily editing activity. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 100-131.

Author: Amanda J. Godly, Ph. D. in Language, Literacy and Culture – UC Berkely (2000). University of Pittsburgh, departments of: Instruction and Learning; Language, Literacy, and Culture; and English and Communications Education. Recent work with A. Escher and presentations/publications on Bidialectical African American adolescents’ code-switching. Thinking about intercultural communications. agodley@pitt.edu

            Brian D. Carpenter – Instructor at the English Language Institute at the University of Pittsburgh.

            Cynthia A. Werner – 10^th-grade English teacher, Wexford, PA

Date: 2007 – renewed emphasis in grammar assessment as part of NCLB and the new writing portion of the SAT (2006)

Research Questions: p. 42: (1) How do the state standards, state assessments, and official curriculum surrounding the Daily Language Practice represent particular language ideologies? (2) How are these languages ideologies reflected in the patterns and structure of the classroom discourse surrounding Daily Language Practice? (3) How are language ideologies expressed and contested through teacher and student talk during the Daily Language Practice? (4) How did the Daily Language Practice shape students’ understanding of the grammar and conventions of written Standard English, particularly as reflected in beginning- and end-of-the-year assessments?

Context (need for study): Gap in empirical studies of grammar instruction in ELA research, and explicit grammar instruction is now part of the norm – likely because of what is included in high-stakes testing (p. 103).

Methods: Yearlong ethnographic study in 3 urban, mostly Black, 10-th grade English classes that use Daily Oral Language (Daily Language Practice). 31/55 enrolled, 30/31 are Black. Two university researchers and the 20-year-veteran classroom teacher analyzed language ideologies together. Classroom discourse analysis, coded for contend and meaning. Page107 describes “ethnography of communication” (Duff, 2002; Saville-Troike, 1989) as focusing on “(a) what is considered appropriate communication in a particular context, (b) oral communication and social interaction as critical sites of learning, and (c) ‘the ecologies of language learning, socialization and use’ (Duff, p. 292).”

Findings: DLP  emphasizes the solitary correctness of written Standard English, offering limited ways to learn about and build off of existing language resources.

            Students see space as important in forming grammarian-selves – when student was prompted to correct spoken grammar, their response was that they were not at the board where they do the grammar changes.

Discussion (my connection): DLP emphasizes a language of power that cannot be ignored. The tests and scores that link to it are backed by the almighty dollar. Schools in which cultures of obedience and adherence to Standard English (especially seen as “our way”) are likely to keep up the daily grammar instruction, seeing it as a building block rather than part of an essence.  As long as the real possibilities of prestigious jobs, colleges, and scholarships are desired by this group of families, students are going to take the mechanics of this seriously enough – because this is what drives standard curriculum then teachers then interaction in the room. It seems like an ugly cycle to me.

Hartwell, P. (1985). Grammar, grammars, and the teaching of grammar. College English, 47(2), 105-127.

Author: Patrick Hartwell, Ph.D, Professor Emeritus of English at Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Died in October of 2000. Central figure in recognizing the ineffectiveness of grammar instruction as a way to learn to write.  A major writing textbook: Open to Language (1982),  was widely used in college writing courses. Also had work on literacy learning influenced by dialect inference. http://www.ou.edu/hartwell/

Date: 1985 – Reagan is president., politically in times of a “literacy crisis” – war on drugs/illiteracy

Research Questions: 1) Why is the grammar issue so important? Why has it been the dominant focus of composition research for the last seventy-five [add 30 to that] years?

            2) What definitions of the word grammar are needed to articulate the grammar issue intelligibly?

            3) What do findings in cognate disciplines suggest about the value of formal grammar instruction?

            4) What is our theory of language, and what does it predict about the value of formal grammar instruction? (This question—“what does our theory of language predict?”—seems a much more powerful question than “what does educational research tell us?”) (p. 108)

Context (need for study): The fors and againsts are both coming at grammar instruction with positivistic ideals – experimenting to find value in formal grammar instruction. The question “What does research tell us?” calls for more experiments that continue to “tell us nothing”. Page 107, Chomsky (1975) criticizes “the trivialization of human learning by behavioral psychologists” and, in effect, experimentation.

Methods: Researched essay

Findings:  Those who value grammar instruction think in sequences and skill sets, but those who do not think in terms of complex interactions. Usage is different than grammar, but Francis didn’t separate them (p. 109).

            In Kolln’s “Closing the Books on Alchemy” (p. 140) – an article in which the anti-grammarian is characterized as the alchemist – grammar is “the internalized system of rules that speakers of a language share,” and Hartwell calls it “the grammar in our heads” (p. 111).

            Conveying larger meaning (Grammar 1) is NOT dependent upon control of the science of formal language patterns (Grammar 2). Francis Christiensen provided an analogy of a centipede thinking deeply about the movement of each of its legs to formal grammar study in 1962.

           

            Krashen (1982) identifies a  hierarchy of rules that  get taught, that are known to different levels of authority, and ultimately the “rules of English”. The inner circle of what is taught in schools is Grammar 4 – the common school grammars. Grammar 5 is stylistic.

            Herbert W. Seliger (1979) found no correlation between ability to state the rule and the ability to apply it correctly (119).

            “If we think seriously about error and its relationship to the worship of formal grammar study, we need to attempt some massive dislocation of our traditional thinking, to shuck off our hyperliterate perception of the value of formal rules, and to regain the confidence in the tacit power of unconscious knowledge that our theory of language gives us” (p. 121).

            People reading aloud will self-correct written errors (p. 121).

            Thinking through this analysis “makes the question of socially nonstandard dialects....into a non-issue” and “forces us to posit multiple literacies, used for multiple purposes, rather than a single static literacy, engraved in ‘rules of grammar” (p. 123).

            Doing away with formal grammar instruction takes power from the teacher and hands it to the students.

Discussion (my connection): The idea of an internal, natural grammar, seems so patronizing to me. To say that the natural way is the way that English speakers (not the argument, but I think it is implied) order words or even make plurals as “untaught” beings is careless. To find an untaught person, you would have to make sure that they were never talked to before the experiment – even while in utero , which would keep them from  fulfilling the requirements.

            On page 115,  James Britton’s analogy of forcing starving people to learn to use a knife and fork before eating makes me think, personally of the Gospel of Christ. The message is not change in order to be forgiven. Grace has no prerequisite for the receivers. I truly believe that education should be seen as an act of grace – not on a spiritual level, but affording students an opportunity of full realization.

            Seliger’s findings are the TRUTH – I had students who knew all sorts of rules and could identify “mistakes” in grammar study but did not appropriate them into their writing.

            I quite enjoy the idea of developing writing skills on two levels: rhetorically for meaningful contexts, and broadly for conscious manipulation of form. The second would seem to ask for some grammar instruction, but it is the second. It is beautifying rather than foundational.

Lefstein, A. (2009). Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling: Teaching “powerful verbs” in the english national literacy strategy. Linguistics and Education, 20(4), 378-400. 

Author: Adam Lefstein, Ph. D. from King’s College London (2005), Department of Education at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Research on interaction/intersection of policy, pedagogy, and classroom events. Looks at the changes in patterns of teaching: dialogic teaching, video for purposes of professional development. http://bgu.academia.edu/AdamLefstein

Date: 2009 – still heavy in standardized testing. Grammar seems to be the thing you can teach rules to most in writing instruction – similar to formulas you need for the math portions of the tests.

Research Questions: What is the “current English policy regarding the teaching of grammar in primary schools, and its enactment in a Year 3 (8-year olds) literacy lesson”?

Context (need for study): Curricular policy proposes rhetorical approach to grammar instruction, but active teaching is formal and rule-based. Defining grammar as broad “study of language patterns and structure” (p. 379). In England.

Methods: Policy research and extended case study (Burawoy, 1998; Mitchell, 1983).  Year 3 in one primary school during 2004-04 school year, including : “participant observation in the school, formal and informal interviews, audio-recording of lessons, and individual and group feedback conversations” (p. 383).

Findings: The “grammars” of schooling (Tyack & Tobin, 1994) and educational accountability keeps participation of rhetorical grammar teaching at bay.

            “Rules are typically taught through teacher transmission, whole class recitation, and individual pupil practice on grammar exercises” (p. 379). Rhetorical grammar is full of choices to be used as tools, not the rule-based correct and incorrect divisions (p. 380).

           

            Rule-based grammar does not trust the individual as a knowledge-holder.

            Progressivists see grammar as “largely irrelevant, boring and a constraint on pupil expression,” alienating the working class (p. 381).

            New Grammar Teaching (Carter, 1991) came out of knowledge about language (KAL) as a sort of middle ground (Cox, 1995, p. 20).: language study integrated into real contexts; built on prior knowledge and experience; understanding of language as power and representative of values; coming from professional knowledge of teachers; and the interestingness of language craves study.

            1998 – New Labour government sought to reform primary literacy education with National Literacy Strategy. Tied to testing and “accountability” through publishing school results.

            Teacher identified target issues, probably as part of NLS suggestions on writing targets. Instruction turns mechanical: find, compare, replace. Students are looking to get right answers, not even considering the rhetorical, the power issues of word choice. Synonyms are not different words with the same meaning. Making a replacement can change the power connotation either higher or lower.

            Students are drawn to making replacements with long or obscure words.

           

Discussion (my connection):

            I know that my grandfather wonders about what I do in school. When we talk, he remarks about  how students don’t diagram sentences anymore, that people don’t study the way they used to. This shows how valued this kind of study was when he went through school, how much we see that the way we were taught was best. This idea of going back to basics is quite classist and nationalistic – languagist?

            Again, not everything we learn is done in building block mode. Can’t we accomplish things in education without having to build a pyramid each time? Language has to be more ethereal than that.

            It is so interesting that we spend so much time trying to get different words for students to use, especially with “said” or “walked” – certainly there is a difference when “whispered” or “sauntered” but said and walked are often what people mean. Is it all a trick?

            Even if the teacher doesn’t focus on grammar rules and the exactness of essentialst grammarians, the practice of the students seems to lead that way. Mechanical work is the lowest common denominator.

            Oh, the vacuum of schooling. How tough it seems to be to have genuine experiences with language that are not contrived or even forced upon the students!

Early Childhood Writing

For some reason my laptop won't connect to the internet. It happened all of a sudden and nothing seems to work. This is from my phone, and I will probably have to do some fenagalling in the PCL after class today in order to get this post up.

===

Dyson, A. H. (1999). Coach Bombay’s kids learn to write: Children’s appropriation of media material for school literacy. Research in the Teaching of English, 33(May – check if it is 1 or 2), 367-402.

Author: Anne Haas Dyson – UC-Berkely at the time of publication, 1981 Ph D from University of Texas, at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign since 2006. ahdyson@illinois.edu  Research interests in sociocultural processes of schooling and literacy – focusing on the qualities of experiences of children in and out of school, language and identity in school.

Date: 1999

Research Questions: What mediums are being appropriated and how are children appropriating them to be seen in written texts? How are the written texts mediating participation with the school world? What’s happening with children, literacy, and media?

Context (need for study): The study of appropriation of storybook text and environmental print far overshadows the study of textual and conceptual knowledge of sports media embedding in textual practice.

Methods: Year-long ethnographic study. Urban 1^st grade, focus on a friend group. Documenting range of cultural texts. School has the widest cross-section of population in Bay area. 4-6 hours of observation and audiotape per week for 8 months, focusing on the relationship of  5-6 students during writing workshop and other writing tasks. Took heavy notes after each day of observation. Characterized references to media type. Studied writing products for media reference, content appropriated from media, method of appropriation (un/embedded). Examined the roles, dialogue, and social context of writing events. Noting tensions during recontextualization.

Findings: Bakhtin (1981) we all borrow text = Interpretivist. Although media texts are of low cultural value (think about my multimodal composition lit review), students are using them to recontextualize school.

            Kids know states by the teams  that are there or references to sports movies. Marcel wrote about himself as a participant in sports or used cartoon characters/pop culture references to bridge into official school talk.

            Use of talk to create new realities and identities in play and then wrote or talked about them in class. Movies provide context for relationships and authority (in coaches).

            The children created realities, mediated by knowledge of and references to outside school media, that they strived hard to keep rules and roles within the public, school space. Their play space is in verbal/media textual spaces – the city doesn’t offer the open space to play. The resulting texts show overlapping social worlds, drawing on equally complex layers.

            “To be effective, teachers must construct realities in which children have roles as competetent actors—but teachers also must learn to differentiate worlds, to see communicative agency, textual knowledge, and embedded concepts in sources other than the ‘usual’ ones” (p. 396).

Discussion (my connection):

            I am fascinated by and thrilled with the necessity of imagination in learning to write, about appropriating identities (Litowitz, 1993). The student has to see themselves as capable of being,/doing something. The teacher must then foster such a future-looking child, whose competence leads to new possibilities (p. 397).  This is part of an environment that I would love to tend to in the garden of my class, where curricula is permeable (Dyson, 1993) and I am busy – not acting as authority to fill empty minds, but practicing “loaning of consciousness” (Bruner, 1986, p. 175) in order to offer students the terminology and talk to make the unofficial official.

            This is a scary idea for many, I am sure – a giving of control to children, it may seem – but it seems to fit in with a ZPD, encouraging and pulling along, letting students appropriate as they see fit, adopting official talk now, later, or never.

            On another look at the participants, I would be interested in how the “brothers and sisters” interacted with students outside this small group of friends. I am interested in how sports media gets to be the focus. I realize that this paper has limited the examples, and I think my question is more about who gets to pick the dominant discourse. Perhaps Marcel is the leader, but how did he get that way? What about him makes others say, “I’m a cheerleader for his team” or “I’m going to draw a football player, too”? He has knowledge to share, but what made this the currency? It’s not like he’s playing the teacher-role as in Wohlwend (2007) – who has a piece about literacy learning through Disney Princess play (thinking about my life with a daughter, what kind of princessing will I value?).

           

Rowe, D. W. (2008). Social contracts for writing: Negotiating shared understandings about text in the preschool years. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(1), 66-95.

Author: Deborah Wells Rowe – Vanderbilt, Dept. of Teaching and Learning. PhD - Indiana (1986). deborah.w.rowe@vanderbilt.edu  Longitudinal ethnographic studies – focusing on how interactions with people in school community solidifies or directs what about and how children learn literacy. Working with David Dickinson in Early Reading First project.

Date: 2008 – beginning of President Obama’s first term. Reeling from NCLB, reassessing state mandates on literacy. Many thoughts on English Language Learners as well as integrating new literacies.

Research Questions: What are social contracts that adults impose on children as they learn at the Walker Preschool writing table? What are the social contracts that experienced writers use to define the parameters of individual and socially constructed writing? How do these contracts get negotiated during writing activities?

Context (need for study): There are studies with young school and preschool children, but there is a research gap around the writing practices of two-year-olds.

Methods: 9 month ethnographic study, 2 year-olds, 2 teachers; worked together to create literacy experiences related to book reading and writing. Design study – she had to implement a pattern to give to students, and there was no control group. Designed based on learning principles – see Table 1 on page 73. Rowe calls it a “naturalistic study” – 2 days a week for the school year, acted as a participant-observer. Fieldnotes and audiotape along with informal interviews and photocopies of children’s texts. Video taping of writing tables. Paretn-survey (open-ended) about home literacy experiences.

Findings: Rowe identifies different forms of writing for students who write their names: scribbles; lines, circles, and curves; cursive-like; and letter-like froms.

Chart format not kept in copy = see pages 78-79

Social contract Anomalous child behavior Expected child behavior Adult behavior 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Boundary contract The edges of pieces of paper create physical boundaries for texts Message contract Children’s marks can represent messages Distinctive-forms contract Writing and drawing use different forms of marks Text-as-object contract A goal of writing is the production of material texts Text-ownership contract Texts are material property individually owned by the authors Text-centrality contract Texts mediate social interaction in literacy events Draws across several pieces of paper Draws from paper onto table Ignores requests to “read” marks Refuses to assign message to marks (e.g., “I can’t.” or “I don’t know.”) Uses the same marks for writing and drawing Pays little or no attention to product after completion Abandons products on table after completion Cuts or tears product apart after completion Abandons products Shows no interest in labeling with name or taking product home Writes on another child’s products Allows other children to write on own product Writes on abandoned products Tries to use nontext objects to mediate interaction during writing events Confines marks to single sheet of paper Reads marks as message when asked Makes marks for name when asked Makes marks for dictated message Explains spontaneously what marks mean Uses different marks for writing and drawing within a task Uses different marks for writing and drawing consistently across tasks Wants to preserve or save product Wants to use product for social purpose Calls adults’attention to product Requests help saving product in personal space (e.g., “cubbie” or school bag) Asks to take product home Protests if others take own product Protests if others write on own product Uses text objects to mediate interaction during writing events Gives product to specified person Uses product to engage adult attention Suggests using one piece of paper Straightens materials and isolates target piece of paper Responds with the following statements and suggestions: “Read it to me!” “What does that say?” “Does it have a message?” “Does that [mark] say [x]?” Responds with the following questions: “Did you write or draw?” “What did you say?” “What did you make?” “What did you draw?” “What did you write?” Uses talk to draw children’s attention to products Praises children’s products Saves and labels children’s products with their names Labels product with children’s names Suggests children take products home Prevents children from writing on or taking another child’s product Suggests use of text object in interaction (e.g., give it to someone, read it aloud, or view it) Rejects use of nontext object to mediate interaction during writing event Figure–ground contract Marks are the central focus in written texts; paper is the background 8 Reader–text obligation contract Texts require literate action; texts should be read Rejects blank text objects: Uses blank piece of paper to mediate interaction during literacy event Receives a text and discards it without looking at it Receives a text and responds to sender orally without looking at text Makes marks on paper before using text object to mediate interaction during literacy event Views texts received from others Asks for help in reading a text Reads a text by commenting on the visual display Reads a text by looking at the visual display and assigning a linguistic message “Where’s the message?” “You need to write a message on it.” Directs children to look at the texts they received Directs children to read the text they received Reads aloud the texts that children received (continued)

Page(s): 78, 05-RRQ-43-1-Rowe by Lisa Kochel

NOOK Study (Johnathan Bonner, emailthebonners@yahoo.com). This material is protected by copyright.

            Social contract 9: Distinctive-meanings contract Writing and drawing use the same media but represent meaning in different ways

            Three of the contracts deal with negotiating the understanding that symbols and systems of writing have meaning and potential for multiple meanings. Adults negotiated participation of children as well as coming to terms with expected relationships between people and texts – what we do with them, how we treat them, etc. Adults would guide purposeful markings that went off the paper back within the boundaries of the paper. ½ the children tried at one point or another to turn in blank pieces of paper as their contributions to the literacy event.

Discussion (my connection): Quoting Barton and Hamilton (2000, p. 8) that literacy knowledge is located “in the relations between people, within groups and communities, rather than as a set of properties residing in individuals” is right up my alley in folklore – artistic communication within small groups. This is how I’ve come to see knowledge, not as something I have, but something we share. In a collection of people, there are those that have a more dominant role, perhaps deeper understanding of how things work (think leadership levels within the Masons). But I like that this frame takes a step away from individual writing behaviors and focuses on “the child in interaction with the people and materials that are part of everyday writing events” (p. 69). It seems to me that this looks at the least contrived place writing exists. I guess you do have to create the space and event before it becomes natural practice – to give cause or reason for, to value (putting paper and crayons out for kids as opposed to not.

            It is interesting to consider how I will guide and maintain (negotiate) my preconceived notions of what writing is with my child. In a similar way to her being fed, I find it so difficult to step out of the way and let her do it herself. I am pleased when she does, yet I feel like I hover – I am fearful of messes. Does this translate into writing? Does she just let me spoon her oatmeal in the morning because it is faster and/or she doesn’t want to deal with may hands in a ready-to-catch position? I want to be able to let her explore with writing without me manipulating and “correcting” her. There must be a balance…mustn’t there?

Wohlwend, K. E. (2007). Reading to play and playing to read: A mediated discourse analysis of early literacy apprenticeship. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 56, 377-393.

Author: Karen E. Wohlwend – Indiana University, Dept of Literacy, Culture, and Language Education. Ph D Iowa (2007), kwohlwen@indiana.edu; Similar article (More similar to Dyson, 1999) in 2009 “Damsels in discourse: Girls consuming and producing identity texts through Disney Princess play” https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/handle/2022/3463

Date: 2007 – Investigation into teacher motivations and ideologies (as readers/writers, on homework, language usage)

Research Questions: “How does ‘playing school,’ an ordinary childhood pastime, shape children’s reading abilities, classroom identities, and relative social positioning?” (p. 377)

Context (need for study): Drawing on Lave and Wenger (1991), looking at “literacy apprenticeships [which] are situated in embodied classroom communities of practice” (p. 378).

Methods: Dyson and Genishi (2005) case study methodology – asked people she new in 3 school districts about classes with specific “child-directed literacy-play periods”.  Conducted surveys and environment scales to find two pilot classrooms.24 weekly visits (2-3 hours) over one year: fieldnotes, audiotapes, and videotapes. Constant comparative analysis to establish a coding scheme, began recording the teacher-play that occurred during play. Mediated discourse analysis – identifying practices by meadiated actions and meaning-making processes. Used to QSR N6 – a qual data analysis software to locate instances of “reading/playing nexus”.

Ethnographic study with critical sociocultural perspective of literacy play in one kindergarten classroom (teacher has master’s in developmental reading and 17 years of classroom experience). Two children from family of immigrants, 4  Vygostkian thought of learning happening as participation increases. Influenced by activity model, uses discourse analysis.

Findings: “Young children regularly [combine] reading and play practices to make the meanings of texts more accessible and to take up empowered identity positions in child-ruled spaces” (p. 377). Playing at role of teacher supersedes the role of “helper of the day” – Emma get’s Peter out of her Helper chair by playing teacher – he must obey.

            There is “a reading/play nexus where 1) reading supported play goals—reading to play—as children read books and charts to make play scenarios more credible or to gain the cooperation of other players, and 2) playing supported reading development—playing to read—as pretending to be the teacher and teaching pretend students enabled children to share and explore reading strategies” (p. 378).

            Invented reading: holding the book but making meaning based on the things around them

            Approximated reading: creating/revising meaning of text in order to match pictures

            Conventional reading: internal

            When students act as teachers, they invent new strategies of decoding and teach them to other students. The player gets to set the scene, be the storymaker, set the rules. Students who are playing readers, still try hard to read the words on the page.

Discussion (my connection): In playing school, children aren’t merely bad at reading or “playing around” (see simply guessing or mimicking), bur are making “agentic transactions (Goodman, 1994) and strategic improvisations (Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner, & Cain, 1998)” (p. 379).

            Research draws on Dyson and Rowe as well as Bomer and Wertsch (who was one of Wetzel’s profs). Not only is this piece connected with thinking that occurs in the related readings, but also with those in my “line of study”. I have seen Figure 1 (379) before (adapted from Engeström’s, 1990, activity model)  – I believe in Dr. Wetzel’s Literacy and Culture course. I think that this is quite helpful for me as I think about multimodal composition, considering the frames of material use and access along with personal appropriation resulting in an artifact.

            Although the strictness of following roles of only having three little pigs seems exclusionary for one students, Lubna makes a wonderfully encouraging statement to Adam as he stares at the page: “When I don’t know a word, I just say something. I just make it up!” The stigma of non-readers seems to still be small. I doubt that students or teachers in secondary levels would allow the inaccuracy or ability to be encouraging to exist. It’s incredible, too, that children routinely accept the playing-teacher’s directives and obey without objection. Again, an older set of students may not be so kind.

            I can totally see myself as a child, using a book (in play or even in debate) to reinforce my position – “Look, it says here that….” If the teacher-player reads it in the book, then it must be true, routine, or supposed to happen.