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 1st 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment