ideological challenges in classroom discourse: a

This article was downloaded by: [Aria Razfar] On: 03 March 2012, At: 15:22 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Critical Inquiry in Language Studies Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcil20

IDEOLOGICAL CHALLENGES IN CLASSROOM DISCOURSE: A SOCIOCRITICAL PERSPECTIVE OF ENGLISH LEARNING IN AN URBAN SCHOOL Aria Razfar a

a

University of Illinois at Chicago

Available online: 07 Dec 2011

To cite this article: Aria Razfar (2011): IDEOLOGICAL CHALLENGES IN CLASSROOM DISCOURSE: A SOCIOCRITICAL PERSPECTIVE OF ENGLISH LEARNING IN AN URBAN SCHOOL, Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 8:4, 344-377 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2011.615621

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable

Downloaded by [Aria Razfar] at 15:22 03 March 2012

for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 8(4):344–377, 2011 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1542-7587 print/1542-7595 online DOI: 10.1080/15427587.2011.615621

IDEOLOGICAL CHALLENGES IN CLASSROOM DISCOURSE: A SOCIOCRITICAL PERSPECTIVE OF ENGLISH LEARNING IN AN URBAN SCHOOL ARIA RAZFAR


University of Illinois at Chicago

Using a sociocritical approach to the study of language and literacy and discourse analysis, this article examines student initiated challenges in a sheltered English course with two types of English learners: nativeC, ESL students; and, recently, arriving ESL students. The analysis draws on 19 hours of videorecorded observations of teacher-student interaction in predominantly whole class literacy activities. Through an in depth analysis of the role of student challenge in ideological constructions, this article shows how nativeC generation students insert themselves into the co-construction of meaning. The main argument set forth in this article is that despite engaging in sophisticated language practices such as ‘‘challenges,’’ nativeC students still do poorly in their class and assessments are biased toward quieter students who are mostly more recent immigrant students. While the course is socially organized to be responsive to the voices of nativeC, Latina/o students, there is a need for critical awareness, or a sociocritical language ideology, that explicitly recognizes and repositions the literacy practices of nativeC students in nondeficit ways.

Introduction This study compares the discourse practices of newly arriving Latina/o immigrant students and ‘nativeC’ generation1 Latina/o students who have been classified as English language learner (ELL) or English as Second Language (ESL) students in an urban secondary school. There is a substantial body of work documenting the disparity in educational attainment for LatiCorrespondence concerning this article should be addressed to Aria Razfar, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, College of Education, Department of Curriculum & Instruction, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1040 W. Harrison Street, M/C 147, Chicago, IL 60607. E-mail: [email protected] 1 I am using the term nativeC to refer to native born 1st generation, 1.5 generation, 2nd generation, and so forth. Latino students who are classified as English learners.

344


Ideological Challenges in Classroom Discourse

345

nas/os with their White counterparts over the last 40 years; some have pointed to teacher instructional and assessment practices as contributors to this disparity (Flores, 1993; Fry, 2007; Lopez, 2009; Menchaca & Valencia, 1990). The consequences of these practices have been more acute for Latina/o populations who have either been born in the United States or arrived before the age of 13 referred to as the 1.5 generation (Harklau, 2000; Harklau, Losey, & Siegal, 1999; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). This article draws on qualitative methods (i.e., discourse analysis) and quantitative measures to examine student initiated challenges and perspective taking in the context of literary and topical classroom activities. The analysis then considers the implications in terms of assessment and evaluation practices. There has been considerable research on teacher questioning and its positive impact on student achievement (Anthony & Raphael, 1987; Christenburg & Kelly, 1983; Cotton, 2001; Creemers & Kyriakides, 2006; Ornstein, 1988), especially the use of questions that lead to higher cognitive functioning and critical thinking (Christenburg et al., 1983). Questioning practices in classroom discourse engenders student engagement in the learning process (Carlsen, 1991; Davydov & Markova, 1983; Miller, 2002). In fact, the more engaged the students are with the topic, the more likely they are to challenge perspectives, assumptions, and ideological stances. These types of epistemic ‘‘challenges’’ have the potential to re-position students as agents of knowledge construction rather than passive recipients of the teacher’s absolute epistemic authority. Thus, it becomes imperative that teachers who engender this type of discourse, place a premium on these practices when it comes to assessment and evaluation of student language proficiency. A misalignment of classroom culture and assessment practice can have adverse implications for all students in terms of academic outcomes and social promotion. The consequences may be even more acute for historically marginalized populations in terms of outcomes and social promotion. The main argument set forth in this article is that in spite of engaging in sophisticated language practices such as ‘‘challenges,’’ nativeC students still do poorly in their class, and assessments are biased toward quieter students who are mostly more recent immigrant students. This argument has three main objectives. First, this analysis has the potential to draw attention to a significant aspect


346

A. Razfar

of critical awareness regarding the language learning of nativeC students in urban schools, namely, challenges in classroom discourse. Second, by taking an in-depth look in one classroom where there is a mix of immigrant and nativeC students, I provide a typology of some of the more advanced discursive practices (i.e., challenge practices) that one could engender when learning is socially organized to be responsive to student voices. Third, while these types of interactions are necessary for learning, it is just as important to explicitly recognize and count them in ways that reposition students in nondeficit ways and hopefully alter the failing outcomes. A critical awareness or a ‘‘critical language ideology’’ can help achieve these ends, and it is important for teachers and administrators working with nativeC students to develop this critical awareness of language learning and instruction in order to achieve more equitable outcomes for nativeC students. Context This study takes place in an urban high school that I will call ‘‘Beach High School’’ (pseudonym). It is located in Southern California, which is in the western part of the United States. The population of the school is mostly Latina/o population (over 65%), and over the last decade restrictive language policies have reduced support for bilingual and English learner (EL) populations. Nearly one-quarter of the entire student population was designated as LEP2 (Limited English Proficient). There is another group of students called ENL (English as Native Language). These students grew up in bilingual homes and were either born in the United States or immigrated before the age of five. They are generally orally proficient but need some type of language support. Placement into the ESL program was contingent upon two factors: 1) a placement exam administered by the bilingual coordinator and 2) arrival time in the United States. In other words, the ESL program was geared toward recently arriving immigrant students not the ENL students. The bilingual coordinator stated that part of the rationale for never placing 2 The term ‘‘LEP’’ is an archaic term but it was the term used by the district. I prefer the term ‘‘English learners’’ (ELs) as it is considered less of a deficit view.



347

ENL students in ESL courses (even if they needed those skills) is the stigmatization these students may be subject to as ESL students. Furthermore, she reported that these students have expressed an unwillingness to be in ESL courses. The ESL program consists of four levels (Early Beginning, Advanced Beginning, Intermediate, and Advanced). In addition, the program has a ‘‘sheltered’’ course that serves as a transition course for regular English courses at this school. Because the school is reluctant to place ENL students in ESL courses, the sheltered course is also reserved for ENL students needing language support. Some of these students may have been formally classified as LEP at some point in their educational lifetime, or they simply are receiving remedial support. Thus, the sheltered course has a combination of more recently arriving immigrant ESL students as well as ENL students. This makes the sheltered course an ideal context for comparing the different generations of English learners. This article focuses on Mr. Sanders’ (pseudonym) sheltered course where nearly all of the student challenges occurred. Mr. Sanders has more than five years of teaching experience, and his assessment of student work is based on their writing, completion of responses to opening statements (everyday), and completion of grammar worksheets. Throughout the semester there are ten writing assignments that are evaluated and graded based on a rubric that considers both content and mechanics. These writing assignments are the only component in which student work is formally evaluated and they receive feedback (other components are only checked for completion). As part of his practice, students are given opportunities to edit, review, and revise their work based on peer feedback. Classroom participation and discussion do not directly figure into his assessment but undoubtedly affect the learning experience. Overall, teachers in the ESL program stated that they have felt increasing pressure to mainstream recent immigrants to the sheltered course in the post Proposition 227 era.3 Currently, California standards require that recently arriving ESL students are mainstreamed in fewer than two years. Given the conventional bilingual education wisdom that it takes 3 In 1998 California voters passed Proposition 227, also known as the ‘‘Unz Initiative,’’ effectively curtailed bilingual education in public schools. This initiative was part of a larger ‘‘English Only’’ campaign spearheaded by Ron Unz.

348

A. Razfar

between five and seven years to develop academic English (Collier, 1989; Cummins, 1984; Thomas & Collier, 1997), this places an unreasonable burden on teachers and students to acquire the necessary skills to be academically successful.


Conceptual Frameworks This analysis is guided by sociocultural and/or sociocritical tenets of language, learning, and human development (Gutiérrez, 2008; Skovsmose, 1994). This perspective builds upon sociocultural principles of learning (Cole, 1996; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1991) by re-framing everyday and institutional literacy practices as powerful tools for social critique of historical relations of dominance and subordination. A sociocritical approach has several distinguishing analytic features from other critical frameworks such as critical pedagogy, practice theory, and critical discourse analysis. According to Gutiérrez (2008), a distinguishing feature of the sociocritical approach is its attention to tensions and ‘‘contradictions in and between texts lived and studied, institutions, and sociocultural practices, locally experienced and historically influenced’’ (p. 149). It explicitly aligns itself with the notion of synchronic and diachronic aspects or ‘‘historicity’’ in learning and development. Other critical approaches to pedagogy and discourse do not explicitly connect themselves to a theory of learning and development; furthermore, sociocultural perspectives of learning do not explicitly draw attention to the role of critical social thought. Therefore, a sociocritical approach assumes an inextricable link among learning, development, and critical social thought. This is to say that for nondominant populations, especially, authentic learning is often embedded within a social space (or ‘‘third space’’) where their lived tensions and contradictions are unpacked. This leads to another important distinguishing feature of a sociocritical approach which is the role of third spaces and hybrid literacy(s) in learning. The third space is a place where both vertical (formal spaces like schools) and horizontal forms of learning (informal spaces) occur (Gutiérrez & Larson, 2007). The ‘‘official space’’ of the classroom, those directed and guided by the teacher, and the unofficial student spaces, those spaces initiated by the students, converge to gener-



349

ate shared understanding. It represents the potential for learning in the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) whereby instructors can draw on a type of question asking that allows for opportunities for movement across past, present, and future roles and practices (Ochs, Schegloff, & Thompson, 1996). Finally, the third space is a critical learning space that transforms challenges and contestation into new shared understandings and knowledge construction. Language plays a fundamental, dynamic role in the construction of social reality, a reality that is subject to constant fluctuation as meaning is constantly negotiated and re-negotiated between various segments of society crossing generational and epistemic boundaries (Ochs & Schieffelin, 1986). These negotiations also include the crossing of social, ideological, and historical relations of power and privilege (Gal, 1989; Gee, 2008; Rogers, 2003; Street, 1993). Hence, these negotiations are expected to be contested terrain, and one way these contestations are exhibited in classroom life is through challenges. Challenges in discourse constitute any discursive act(s) that show disagreement with another participant’s interpretation or bring into question the truth of a proposition (Ochs & Capps, 1996). This may also include an overt demand for proof in response to claims made by others within an interaction. Given that learners are agents of meaning making and language use, the process of language socialization is expected to be replete with contestation and discursive challenges. Language socialization is a bi-directional process whereby novices gain knowledge and skills relevant to membership in a social group through interactions with more competent members or ‘‘experts’’ (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Ochs, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1991). It is important to emphasize that learner identities are not static as the roles between experts and novices can change in the course of interactions depending on the goal. For example, children are the experts of their own form of talk and adults make attempts to learn their language while modeling the more established conventions of talk. In contrast to acquisition models of language learning, human beings are conceived as agents of learning and meaning making as opposed to passive acquirers of discrete information (Block, 2003).


350

A. Razfar

It follows that the beliefs and assumptions about the nature and purpose of language and learning, or language ideologies, have consequences on teacher practice, assessment, student learning, and ultimately outcomes. Language ideologies represent a critical perspective on how to frame teachers’ beliefs about the function and purpose of language. Language ideologies are more than personally held beliefs, individual emotional states or ‘‘attitudes.’’ Language ideologies are the actual discursive practices that are grounded within larger social, historical, and political relations (Irvine & Gal, 2000; Kroskrity, 2010; Razfar, 2005). Speech codes and metacommunicative vocabularies overlap with the more critically toned concept of language ideologies, ‘‘habitual ways of thinking and speaking about language and language use which are rarely challenged within a given community’’ (Verschueren, 1999, p. 198; see also Jaworski, Coupland, & Galasinksi, 2004). From this critical standpoint it becomes apparent that cultural speech codes incorporate historically contingent practices, beliefs, and standards of ‘‘correctness’’ that systematically favor more powerful segments of society over others, for example, by stereotyping and devaluating the communication of women, lower classes, and immigrant groups. The language ideologies framework also examines how ideologies, traditionally discussed as ‘‘Ideology,’’ are constructed through language and discourse (Irvine & Gal, 2000). In contrast to ‘‘I’’deology, there is a deliberate conceptual move to examine the multiplicity and locally produced dimensions of ‘‘ideologies’’ which provides for a more empirical and grounded approach that can be more easily appropriated in teacher education. This aspect is particularly salient to this analysis given the focus on classroom discourse challenges that involve ideological stances. Even the pioneering work of critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1995) did not examine issues of power and difference in the context of everyday talk in classrooms, focusing mostly on texts constructed within media and legal modes of communication. More recent applications of this work illustrate the powerful possibilities of examining difficult social issues in the context of classroom practices (e.g., Rogers & Christian, 2007; Wodak & Meyer, 2001). The importance of language ideologies in this study can also be seen in terms of how learning is organized for



351

the purpose of language development and what ultimately gets counted in assessment. Critical approaches to discourse analysis afford key tools for better understanding how macro-level educational disparities can be understood through micro-level analysis of classroom talk. This perspective assumes an inextricable link between learning, talk, and power relations (Fairclough, 2003; Gee & Green, 1998; van Dijk, 2008; Wodak & Meyer, 2001). In this analysis, the Latina/o nativeC practices of challenge should be viewed through the prisms of the broader sociopolitical context and the persistent patterns of immigrant achievement and U.S. born underachievement (Valenzuela, 1999). Over the last decade, educational policies have only exacerbated the crisis for U.S. born Latina/o learners (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). Critical discourse analysis as a methodology serves to bring awareness, or a critical consciousness, to broader inequitable outcomes in the schooling of nondominant linguistic groups (e.g., Gee, 2000; Rampton, Roberts, Leung, & Harris, 2002; Shannon, 1995). Gee’s (2000) analysis of narratives lead to the conclusion that ‘‘working class teens fashion themselves as immersed in a social, affective, dialogic world of interaction, while upper middle class teens fashion themselves as immersed in a world of information, knowledge, argumentation, and achievements’’ (p. 416). He also found that working-class youth ‘‘narrativize’’ substantially more, but these narratives are not necessarily valued in school ultimately impacting achievement and learning outcomes. The narratives and ‘‘narrativizing’’ of working class youth can be considered a type of challenge to existing social relations and the status quo. The importance of this type of work is that it delves deeply into the day-to-day interactions, activities, and social processes that construct these outcomes, which require in-depth ethnographic tools such as critical discourse analysis.

Role of Challenges and Student Learning There has been considerable discussion in anthropological and applied linguistics circles around discursive and narrative acts of challenge and resistance. Whether these practices are done by academics, politicians, artists, or children they represent clear


352

A. Razfar

asymmetrical, distant relations and degrees of entitlement assumed by speakers. Drawing on Kuhn (1962), Ochs and Capps (1996) argue that ‘‘challenge is central to the evolution of scientific paradigms in Western societies, especially to the social perception of an idea as distinct and novel’’ (p. 36). There are many markers that distinguish discursive challenges from more neutral acts of questioning that only serve the referential functions of language. Minimal feedback, ridicule, and denial are examples of discourse practices that are often mediated by power relations. One of the major coding dilemmas was how to distinguish a student question or the act of questioning from a student challenge especially as it relates to this analysis. Given the critical orientation of this analysis, it was an important issue to address. After all, what distinguishes a student who questions to elicit information from a student who challenges a perspective? In most of the literature on teacher and student questioning practices there is considerable agreement, especially within sociocultural theory, that questions that lead to higher order thinking will enhance student learning (Davydov & Markova, 1983; Miller, 2002). Leading questions that follow student challenges such as, ‘‘What does that mean?’’ ‘‘Can you explain your thinking?’’ ‘‘Why do you disagree?’’ allow students to participate more freely and formulate their thoughts (Wertsch, 1991). This type of mediation promotes movement through the zone of proximal development and the development of self-regulated thought (Vygotsky, 1978). However, most of the research on student-teacher and student-questioning presumes an asymmetrical power dynamic between teacher and student in relation to the construction of knowledge where the teacher is the expert and the student is the novice and perpetual learner (Cazden, 1988). The social practice of questioning in classroom discourse is for the most part conceptualized as a neutral, inert instructional act. Students are not cast as experts of knowledge, nor is ‘‘student questioning’’ related to issues of power in terms of how perspectives and ideological stances are framed. In this sense, it was important to make an explicit distinction between neutral understandings of teacher and student questioning and the more critical aspects which are the basis for this analysis. The social practice of challenge constitutes an overt disagreement or an oppositional stance rooted in social, historical, and



353

ideological positioning of the participants. In addition, the social practice of student challenge emphasizes student agency within the milieu of the classroom community. It is also an integral part of language socialization in general. As with all discourse analysis, there is a tendency to privilege more vocal students and in this case the verbalized challenges in the ‘‘front stage’’ of classroom discourse. It is important to note that silence can be just as agentive; thus, it should not be inferred that students who were more silent were less agentive in their learning as they may have appropriated the ‘good student’ identity. The verbalized challenges which are the unit of analysis in this study are but one form of student agency that was more evident with nativeC students. Human beings undergo a life-long process of language socialization whereby they continuously transform into the values of an expected social order and at the same time have the potential to challenge that order, albeit not without real consequences (Duff & Hornberger, 2008; Ochs, 1991). While individual agents jointly accomplish the expected values, these normative practices can and often are contested. However, rather than construct ‘‘contestation’’ and ‘‘challenges’’ as something rebellious or problematic, these spaces of contestation can be and generally are opportunities for authentic learning and zones of proximal development in the ‘‘third space’’ (Gutiérrez, 2008; Gutiérrez, Rymes, & Larson, 1995). Thus, in the context of schools, teachers should value student challenges and contestation as a mark of active learning and align their assessments accordingly. These interpretive and ideological challenges are practices that engender higher-order thinking, resilience, and greater responsibility for learning in students (Fazey, 2010). Classroom discourse that is open to debate and contestation moves students beyond dualistic thinking to develop more complex epistemologies (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997) and prepares students to deal with conflicting positions (Del Collins, 2005). In this manner, critical questioning or challenges to authoritative voices and narratives are markers of agency in learning. This study not only examines the practice descriptively, but it also considers the real consequences and implications of such practices for the students (particularly nativeC generation). Table 1 illustrates the range of challenges observed through out the study.

354

A. Razfar

TABLE 1 Typology of Observed Student Challenges Challenge type 1) ALTERNATIVE NARRATIVE 2) CLASSROOM DISCOURSE RULES 3) COUNTER EXAMPLE


4) DEFINITIONS

5) EPISTEMIC STANCE 6) IDEOLOGAL/ETHICAL STANCES*

Definition Challenges that begin with ‘but : : : ’ and demand an alternative rationale or perspective. Students challenge classroom norms. Students provide counter example or anomaly to stated assertion or claim. Linguistic structures, words.

Student questions the teacher’s epistemic stance and demands evidence Students challenge interpretation, ideological stances, and ethical values.

7) LANGUAGE USE

Students challenge ‘‘English Only’’ rule by using Spanish

8) NEGATION

Instance of disagreement or use of ‘no’ in response to position taken by teacher or other students. Student insists on their answer to teacher question about reading content

9) PERSISTENCE

Example (St D Student, T D teacher) St, ‘‘but where do the drugs come from?’’ St, ‘‘What if : : : ’’ Student uses first name. T, ‘‘Excuse me : : : what did you call me?’’ T, ‘‘Women now occupy powerful positions in congress : : : ’’ th St, ‘what about president?’ T, ‘Pacific’ means peaceful but it is anything but, it’s violent’ St, ‘It is why? Seems peaceful to me.’ T, ‘‘A tree doesn’t really pray to God, it doesn’t have a mouth’’ St, ‘‘How do you know?’’ T: you’ll find overall music critics who look at things objectively. St: What if he likes it, what would happen then? Students are speaking in Spanish T: English! St: ‘‘we are talking about [the task]’’ T, ‘‘Football is dangerous.’’ St, ‘‘No it’s not’’ St, ‘‘the answer was because he was rich’’ T, ‘‘No he wasn’t’’ St, ‘‘Yes, he was’’

*focus of this article.

Data Collection and Coding This study draws on a corpus of video-recorded classroom discourse collected over one academic year (approximately 19 hours divided in one-hour segments) in the sheltered English course. Using an observational protocol, each period of observation was coded for teacher initiated questions, student responses, teacher evaluation of the responses (Razfar & Rumenapp), and student initiated challenges (using the typology in Table 1) to either teacher or peer responses by two coders (graduate students). Open-coding sessions with random samples of transcript were initially conducted in order to reach consensus on the definitions of our codes. Naturally, some codes were more debated



355

than others. Once we reached consensus on the definitions of the codes, the entire corpus of data was coded using NVivo 8.0 (www.qsrinternational.com), which provides measures of interrater reliability based on percent agreement and Cohen’s Kappa. Since one of the fundamental assumptions of Cohen’s Kappa is that the raters are independent, and our raters were the participants themselves and were free to discuss coding definitions and interpretations of episodes, we decided to achieve high degrees of percent agreement between the coders (greater than 80%). In addition, student initiated questioning of teacher and peer perspectives in task-related discussions were also analyzed. Student initiated questioning was a particularly important code in this context in that it served as an index for more advanced oral and sociocultural language proficiency (Carlsen, 1991). The coding scheme and hierarchical levels in Table 2 were used to organize and analyze instances of student challenges. Each code captures instances of student challenge where the student calls into question, disagrees, or demands proof for an interpretation, narrative, claim, or ideological stance. Sometimes classroom procedures and regulations were brought into question, but most

TABLE 2 Coding of Student Challenges Student discourse practice 1. Student Challenge

1.1 Content Based Challenge

1.2 Procedural Challenge 1.3 Counterscript

Definition Student calls into question, disagrees, or demands proof for an interpretation, narrative, or ideological stance. This also includes classroom procedures. Student challenges interpretation, narrative, or ideological stance of content. Student challenges classroom procedure. Content related discussions in the unofficial spaces of the classroom (Gutiérrez, et al. 1995)

Frequency

Observations total D 19

94

19 (100%)

76 (81% of all challenges)

19 (100%)

18

10 (53%)

117

19 (100%)

356

A. Razfar

of the challenges and the focus of this article is based on the content related challenges (N D 76 out of 94, or 81%).


Findings The findings of this study suggest that nativeC generation students initiated nearly all contents based challenges of teacher and peer perspectives in the context of classroom discourse (75/76, or 99%). Figure 1 shows the frequency and distribution of challenges across the observations of Mr. Sanders’ class. The more recent immigrant students tended to make verbal contributions to discussions when they were prompted by Mr. Sanders usually in the form of a question explicitly directed at them or an indexical cue. In the public space of the classroom, the nativeC generation students regularly engaged in challenges of text vis a vis moral and ideological stances, linguistic form, and interpretation. These language practices must be understood in the context of how learning was systematically organized. Each classroom activity was rated in accordance with a social organization of learning protocol (Razfar et al., 2011) rating used to gauge the nature of participation overall in all classrooms. These ratings were done after the completion of data collection based on the

FIGURE 1 Student Challenges During Whole Class Discussion (N D 76).



357

video-recordings by two raters. A five point Likert scale on nine items was used to measure the items (Table 3). The total score for each observation was added to determine the overall script as recitation (lowest, 1), responsive (2), responsive collaborative (3), or community of learners (highest, 4–5). Thus, the higher the total, the more interactive and symmetric the classroom discourse. Overall, the sheltered course (with an average score of 2.7 that suggested responsive collaborative) exhibited an interactive and conversational classroom culture. On certain measures such as discourse pattern (avg. 4.2) and preferred learning goal (avg. 4.1) the classroom interactions looked like a community of learners. One caveat in this regard was that the ‘‘whole class’’ (avg. 3.2) was not always visibly engaged, partly because there was a lack of vocal participation from the more recent immigrant students. This is not to suggest that they were not participating, but in the context of classroom discussions they could have assumed the role of legitimate peripheral participants (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Immigration generational status (years in the United States) clearly impacted the frequency and likelihood of challenges.

Immigration Generational Status and Challenge The students in Mr. Sanders’ sheltered course differed in terms of students’ length of residency and generational status. In the sheltered course, 14 out of 17 students (82%) who had been in the United States nearly all of their lives initiated at least one challenge during whole class discussion. In contrast, only one student (out of 6) who had been in the United States less than five years initiated a student challenge (about 1% of all the observed student challenges 1/76). While for the most part the classroom culture and instructional arrangement was whole class, teacher guided, and conversational, there were three observations (3/18) in which the students engaged in small group ‘‘editing’’ activities. In this context, there were several instances where the more recently arriving ESL students initiated challenges of their more ‘‘tenured’’ English as a Native Language (ENL) peers on issues of linguistic form (see Razfar, 2005). This highlights an important point regarding the participation of newly arriving immigrants in the presence of nativeC generation students: whole class dis-

358

Speaker designation Teacher Uptake Topic Selection Discourse Pattern Script Alignment with Learning Goal Preferred Learning Goal Frequency of Repairs Expansion Extent of Participation

1 (Low) Teacher Designates Non-Acceptance Teacher Selected Strict IRE Never Correctness Repair Direction Teacher No Expansion Small Core

(Razfar 2003, Adapted from Gutiérrez et al., 1999).

Overall Average

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Category

TABLE 3 Social Organization of Learning Protocol

Student Designates Acceptance Co-Construction Conversational Always Shared Knowledge Repair Direction Student Incorporation Whole Class

5(High)


2.7

1.5 2.5 2.0 4.2 3.4 4.1 1.0 2.1 3.2

Avg. score for 19 observations 1 D Recitation 2 D Responsive 3 D Responsive collaborative 4–5 D Community of learners


359


cussions may constitute a higher social risk especially as it relates to the practice of challenge. The students who had been in the United States the least were less likely to participate in wholeclass discourse activities and less likely to initiate challenges on the front stage of classroom discourse. It is possible that as new participants to a discourse community they assume the position of a legitimate peripheral participant (Lave & Wenger, 1991). I take an in depth look at how several nativeC generation students challenged and contested perspectives and ideologies in Mr. Sanders’ sheltered course. Robert Challenging ‘‘Objectivity’’ Robert was one of the most vocal students throughout and had been in Mr. Sanders’ sheltered course for two years. He selfidentified as a third generation Latina/o and regularly engages the various issues discussed in class. During the unit on persuasive essays, the notions of author ‘‘objectivity’’ and ‘‘subjectivity’’ were the subject of discussion. This was one of the most interesting ideas or idea-logies, the challenging of ideas as opposed to formal political worldviews (Schieffelin et al., 1998), which was contested and challenged during classroom interactions. The following vignette illustrates how the notion of objectivity was contested and constructed and how student initiated challenges served to define and redefine the idea that initially begins with ironically an objective, uncontestable meaning. It illustrates the importance of student challenges in fostering a conversational exchange and authentic meaning making. Mr. Sanders uses practices such as assuming the voice of an invisible other, mock voice, and the use of modals to establish the definition of objectivity. In addition, the presence of student challenges illustrates the co-constructive nature of the discourse. The first explicit reference to the notion of objectivity occurs in the following discourse segment where Mr. Sanders defines the role of a music critic as one who knows the music industry (lines 1–4):4 4 Transcription

conventions come from conversational analysis (CA) (Drew & Heritage, 1992). Bold D emphasis/stress; ‘:’ D vowel elongation, (.) D micro-pause; [ ] D overlapping talk

360 01 02 03 04

A. Razfar Mr. S: A music critic (.) a music critic now. We all listen to music and we all have our critical ideas on music but a music critic is one who knows the music industry, music industry

Mr. Sanders begins to construct the music critic’s epistemic authority in relation to the common ‘‘music critic.’’ In lines 7–13, a legitimate music critic is further defined by the typical practices a music critic partakes in, and there is a brief challenge to this construction in line 5 that garners no uptake from the teacher (Bloome, 2004): Downloaded by [Aria Razfar] at 15:22 03 March 2012

05 Robert: industry?

In lines 6–12, Mr. Sanders continues to elaborate on who is a legitimate music critic; however, in lines 13–15, Robert interjects and challenges the construction by asking about the tastes and interests of the critic: 13 come out of any given music. Ok. So a critic[ 14 Robert: [you’re 15 saying a critic doesn’t listen [like]his own music?

Mr. Sanders’ response (lines 16–31) to this question aims to establish the objective position of the critic as one who can separate his or her own musical preferences. In lines 16 and 17, Mr. Sanders begins the construction of an objective music critic: 16 17

Mr. S: well, there are, yeah you’ll find overall music Critics who look at things objectively. Ok. So. If

Mr. Sanders then proceeds (lines 18–32) to illustrate this construction with an example of a music critic who does not like country music yet must be able to separate his personal preferences and objectively evaluate a music piece (lines 18 and 19): 18 19

you don’t like country music and you’re given a job to go evaluate a country music album you can’t turn

In fact, Mr. Sanders assumes the voice of the imaginary critic (lines 20 and 21) who is not able to evaluate music he/she does


361

not like objectively. One of the key practices that speakers use to index ideological distance from others is the use of mock tones. Mock tones are used to imitate reported speech (real or imagined) and signal metapragmatic awareness ( Jaworski et al., 2004; Verschueren, 1999). The rising intonation and the mock tone index the manner in which Mr. Sanders ideologically distances himself from such a music critic:


20 21

around and say, ‘well" I don’t like it because I don’t like country [rising intonation, mock voice]

In the final turns of this discourse segment (lines 22–32), Mr. Sanders categorically defines the role of an objective music critic: ‘‘You have to put your own likes and dislikes aside’’ (lines 23 and 24): 22 23 24

I mean you have to go into it with a certain amount of objectivity you have to put your own likes and dislikes aside (.)listen to the words, listen to the

One way Mr. Sanders accomplishes this exclusive definition is through the use of the modal auxiliary ‘‘have to.’’ There are six utterances of this modal in lines 22–31 (see lines 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28): 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

harmonies in the song, which now means you have to understand what a harmony is, you have to understand what a melody is, you have to understand the progressions in a song, you have to understand a lot about the background of music before you can go ahead and look at a song, or an album, or an artist in a critical way. Ok. So, informed [writing on the board]

As Mr. Sanders continues to define terms such as ‘‘informed’’ and ‘‘working knowledge of the field,’’ Robert once again challenges the notion of a neutral critic by raising the question of a music critic liking a piece of music he/she is evaluating (line 33): 33 Robert: what if he likes it, what would happen then?

362

A. Razfar

Mr. Sanders once again responds to Robert’s challenge in lines 34–40:


34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Mr. S: [writes on the board the word ‘opinion’] that’s your word, ‘opinion’ not every critic will like everything they come across because it might not suit them. Ok. You’re trying to be objective in this case [back turned writing on the board]and evaluate it but a critic will almost always insert their opinion, so there’s some subjectivity. [8:49]

It is clear from this sequence that Mr. Sanders concedes that some degree of self-interest may influence the evaluation (lines 36 and 39); thus, complete neutrality and objectivity is less possible than initially framed. Robert’s challenge serves to mediate a more complex definition of objectivity, rather than the more fixed definition initially proposed by Mr. Sanders. This also demonstrates the multiple ideological positions with respect to objectivity that exist within this discourse segment which shows how when ideologies are analyzed in discursive practice they are often multiple and filled with tension rather than existing as a monolithic, fixed category. Even though the teacher assumes the expert role to define objectivity and the objective music critic, Robert’s challenge, in effect, alters the initial stance proposed by Mr. Sanders which leads to the co-construction of a more nuanced meaning of objectivity and the objective music critic. Challenging the Setting and Ideologies of Nationhood Discussions of literature were typical literacy events in Mr. Sanders’ sheltered English class. The conversational exchanges that would take place around literature were socially organized as openended activities that engendered student challenges of moral and ideological stances. The following example comes from a literary based discussion about Shirley Jackson’s the Lottery, a classic short story of contemporary small town American life with an annual ritual known as ‘‘the lottery.’’5 The story, which was extremely controversial when it was originally published, is a 5 Shirley

Jackson ( June 26, 1948). Fiction: ‘The Lottery.’ The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://archives.newyorker.com/?iD1948-06-26#folioD024



363

depiction of a ‘‘human sacrifice’’ ritual that takes place in ‘‘small town America’’; however, the name and place of the setting were never explicitly mentioned. Students were given a set of ten questions to answer individually prior to the discussion of The Lottery. The ensuing discussion is about the possible setting(s) of the story. This evokes powerful ideological and moral tensions about nationality and identity amongst the participating students. The primary participants in this exchange were Bertha, Karina, and Romero, all nativeC Latina/o students. This sequence begins about eighteen minutes into class time where Mr. Sanders selects Bertha (line 1) to respond to the following question about the setting of the story (lines 1–3). In prompting Bertha, Mr. Sanders constructs the community that practices the lottery as singular and close-knit as indexed by ‘‘everyone’’ (line 1), the uses of ‘‘they’’ (lines 2 and 3), and their familiarity ‘‘with each other.’’ Bertha delays uptake until she responds negatively, ‘‘I dunno’’ in line 6: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Mr. S: Now Bertha (.) given that : : : everyone gathers in the town square (.)they know each others na:mes (.) they seem very fami:liar with each o:ther (.) uh::m where do you think this takes place? (2 Seconds) B: I dunno (1 Second)

Mr. Sanders then revoices the question (lines 8 and 9) to present two alternatives, ‘‘America’’ or ‘‘a different country’’: 08 09

Mr. S: We::ll do you think it takes place in:: America:: or: in a different country?

The revoicing in lines 8 and 9 constructs ‘‘different’’ in relation to a singular America where America is assumed to be a unitary whole. In other words, Mr. Sanders does not frame the question in terms of a region within America or even which part of America (i.e., North, South, Central). At this point, it is not clear why Mr. Sanders has framed the question in terms of nations instead of regions within America. It appears that the dichotomy of choices where the first choice is emphasized, syntactically located first, and separated from the second choice through elongation

364

A. Razfar

slightly slants the question to prefer the second choice ‘‘in a different country’’ as a response. Bertha does indeed uptake the second choice in her response (line 10): 10

B: in a different country [lower voice]


Mr. Sanders asks for a repeat of the response and then confirms it in line 13. As he confirms the response, one student challenges it in line 14, but Mr. Sanders does not uptake the challenge and moves toward Bertha to have her specify which country she thinks it might be (line 16): 11 12 13 14 15 16

Mr. S: huh? B: in a different country [louder] Mr. S: in a different country::? O:kay. S: [No:: (3 seconds)[moves toward Bertha] Mr. S: in what country do you think it takes place?

Bertha hedges her response (line 17) and offers Central America as a possible region where these unfamiliar and ‘‘savage’’ practices are taking place. However, Mr. Sanders is surprised by the response as evidenced by the questioning stances he takes (lines 19 and 21). In addition, rather than Bertha uptaking Mr. Sanders’ surprise, another student, Karina, explains why she thinks the story takes place somewhere in Central America (lines 23 and 24). However, Karina’s response indicates that she has not oriented to the themes of savagery, barbarism, and lack of civilization; instead, Karina rationalizes her choice through ideologies of cultural and traditional maintenance: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

B: I dunno (1 sec) in Central America? (2 seconds) Mr. S: huh? [points to Karina] K: in Central America? Mr. S: in Central Ame:rica(.) what gave you that i:dea? [looks at Karina] K: most of the countries in Central America they keep their traditions [lower voice]

Karina’s positive rationalization is interpreted in relation to the other choice America as the possible setting for such uncivilized practices. In other words, if Central America is a region where



365

traditions are maintained, then it follows that America is a country that does not maintain its traditions. In fact, Mr. Sanders revoices the implied logical conclusion of Karina’s response in lines 25 and 26 and socially marks this conclusion as Karina’s ‘‘so you’re saying,’’ thus establishing social distance between himself and Karina’s deduction in relation to American ideologies of cultural maintenance. Once again American and Central American societies are assumed to be a unitary whole free from variation. However, Karina and Ramiro challenge this revoicing of their ideological stances in lines 27 and 28 and Mr. Sanders initiates (line 29) a sequence where this position is interrogated in the public space of the classroom (lines 29–49). 25 26 27 28

Mr. S: okay. So:: your saying that American society does not necessarily(.) keep their traditions K: [No:: R: [No::

Mr. Sanders slightly hedges his stance from an absolute position to a revised ‘‘for the most part’’ position (line 29), which acknowledges some variation. At the same time, however, he subordinates this notion of variation to the idea of generalizable cultural practices as defined by ideologies of nationhood (i.e., a singular national ethos and identity). This ‘‘relative absolute’’ stance is once again modified and downgraded (lines 30–31) as ‘‘to some extent.’’ Mr. Sanders’ language practices of self-repairing and modifying his initial ideological stances twice demonstrate the role of participant challenges and contending voices to coconstruct ideologies in classroom discourse. Mr. Sanders articulates his stance in lines 31–33 indexing his partial alignment with that position as it relates to ‘‘American society.’’ 29 30 31 32 33 34

S: [for the most part Mr. S: to some extent that’s true. to some extent American soci::ety does not stand up with their traditions. They let them fall to the waste side. (.5)

Mr. Sanders then directs the question to Ramiro seeking an explanation for his categorical rejection of Mr. Sanders’ initial take (line 35). After Mr. Sanders clarifies and situates the ques-

366

A. Razfar

tion with respect to America (line 37), another student fills the response slot with ‘‘Thanksgiving’’ (line 39):


35 36 37 38 39

Now. Why do you say no::? [looks at Ramiro] R: [begins to offer response Mr. S: American societies? For example? (2 seconds) S: Thanksgiving.

Mr. Sanders uptakes the nonratified respondent and initiates a sequence whereby he takes an opposing ideological stance which is indexed right away by various verbal and nonverbal cues such as gesturing and shaking his head. This sequence highlights the underlying tension between ideologies of national sovereignty and legitimacy with ideologies of local and communal control (lines 40–48): 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

Mr. S: Ho::lidays.[gestures down, shakes head, rising Intonation] holidays, federal holiday you can’t really count that as a small community tradition, now we’re dealing in the story with a small community every year on June 28th I think it is they:: uhm have this lo:ttery (2 seconds) you know its not this nationwide thing were every single town and community does it[rising intonation](.) so:: what we’re dealing with

First, the original student response of Thanksgiving (line 39) is revoiced and typified as ‘‘holidays’’ (lines 40 and 41) and more specifically ‘‘federal holiday.’’ This becomes the inherent explanation for why ‘‘you can’t really count that as a small community tradition’’ (line 41). Mr. Sanders then proceeds to dichotomize small communities in relation to national and nationwide entities. The student who offered the response of Thanksgiving was in relation to the question of cultural and traditional maintenance in American society as a whole. From this perspective, Thanksgiving qualifies as a legitimate response because it is regular practice of the American nation. Mr. Sanders cites the date June 28th as a regular feature of the lottery practice; however, Thanksgiving also has a regular date every last weekend of November. The invalidity of the student’s response appears to be based on the difference between small communities and ‘‘every single town and community’’ (line 46) as illustrated in the discourse. Of course,



367

this assumes that the official state narrative of Thanksgiving is universally (at least nationally) accepted and everyone celebrates it. Voices that contend the legitimacy of Thanksgiving are erased from consideration (Irvine & Gal, 2000). For example, it does not consider the native perspectives that question and contest the legitimacy of Thanksgiving or consider it a day of ‘‘mourning’’ (Zinn, 2005). Nevertheless, the student’s response seems relevant in relation to the immediate prompt that preceded it, but it may not be considered relevant in relation to the overall objective of constructing ideological stances vis a vis the practice of the lottery itself as a ‘‘savage’’ and ‘‘strange’’ practice. It may be because of the nature of the practice itself where the practice of a lottery and offering of human sacrifice is qualitatively different from the traditional feast of Thanksgiving. Thus, before addressing the practice itself, a small community tradition and practice such as the lottery is isolated and marginalized with respect to nationally sanctioned and legitimate traditions. Mr. Sanders marks his conclusion in line 47 with ‘‘so’’ and reiterates the position that national holidays ‘‘don’t count’’ as a valid comparison because ‘‘this is a small town in someplace’’ while the issue of cultural maintenance (in terms of regular and repeated practices) is largely the same (line 49): 47

it"[rising intonation](.) so:: what we’re dealing with

These discourse segments are representative of how nativeC generation Latina/o students demonstrate agency in classroom discourse by challenging ideological positions and shape the analysis in complex and structured ways. In addition, they illustrate how despite the legitimate points raised by the challenges, the prescribed, teacher-centered interpretation is privileged through subtle discursive moves; thus, authentic and joint meaning making and the student voices are somewhat stifled in favor of ‘‘the known,’’ ‘‘right,’’ and correct predetermined interpretation. Nevertheless, these students persist in asserting their voice. It can be argued that these challenges are part of the teacher’s script and thus they are encouraged and expected; however, if this were the case, then the teacher can be expected to more strategically invite the nonnativeC students into such practices, which they rarely do. Furthermore, the nativeC students who are engaging

368

A. Razfar


in such practices are rarely validated or explicitly encouraged either during classroom discourse or in other forms of assessment which I will discuss in the next section. Finally, while the issue of challenges in classroom discourse was not discussed with Mr. Sanders, he has expressed a notable difference in ‘‘commitment to learning’’ between ‘‘Hispanic’’ and ‘‘non-Hispanic’’ students. In previous work (Razfar, 2003), he discusses the difference between these groups of students: Well, the young woman who was here from Germany for the first semester, she was constantly working hard to improve her literacy skills, always answering questions, getting involved in the discussions and I find that most of the Hispanic English language learners are kind of shy. They are kind of embarrassed about trying to speak a new language; they’re you know a little apprehensive. I mean don’t get me wrong; many of them love it. They are working with the language, and they’re meeting the challenge. It almost seems like a partial commitment to a lot of, from a lot of them. The young women that who from China, she is so immersed in this; she is constantly trying to build her vocabulary, and it comes through. I see it in the language she uses in answering questions, and you know I do have one or two students; I have one young man that I’m thinking of in my freshmen class who is constantly using Spanish English dictionary to try to improve his vocabulary and work on things, and he’s asking me question. ‘Is this how you spell this? Is this correct? Is that correct?’ And I don’t get that from a majority of Hispanic students. (Razfar, 2003, pp. 242–243)

In this quote, Mr. Sanders is referring to the nativeC, Latina/o students who seem to be giving a ‘‘partial commitment’’ to learning and are ‘‘shy.’’ Whereas students from other parts of the world (e.g., Germany, China) and the recently arriving Latina/o student who ‘‘constantly uses his Spanish-English dictionary’’ and ‘‘asking me questions’’ are seemingly more engaged and committed to schooling and learning. Interestingly, these students never initiated challenges in classroom discourse.

What Literacy Practices Count? Implications for NativeC Students During ex-post facto analysis, several questions were raised in terms of assessment and evaluation and how it related to the



369

classroom observations. First, how well did the students do especially in terms of grades? Second, what types of literacy practices did Mr. Sanders privilege in his evaluative practice(s)? Clearly, the impression from the discourse data in terms of language proficiency, learning, and critical thinking cast the nativeC generation/ENL students in a positive light. They demonstrated agency, active engagement, and contested established definitions or the teacher’s interpretations and ideological stances. These practices often lead to more nuanced meaning making and demonstrated deep thinking. In contrast, their more traditional ESL counterparts rarely vocalized their participation and hardly ever (1/76 instances) engaged in the type of content-based ‘‘challenges’’ that the nativeC students did. This is not to say that they were not learning or ‘‘legitimately participating’’ in other ways. The final grades for Mr. Sanders’ sheltered course were distributed as shown in Figure 2. A simple Pearson correlation between ‘‘final grades’’ and ‘‘years in the United States’’ illustrated a significant inverse relationship that was quite surprising in terms of what was documented during observations (Table 4). There was an inverse relationship between length of residency in the United States and final grades (r D .811, p < .01). The ENL students who were actively engaged and participated in literary discussions were amongst the lowest performing students as measured by final grades, and the more silent ESL

FIGURE 2 Grade Distribution (N D 23).

370

A. Razfar

TABLE 4 Correlation Between Final Grades and Years in the United States Years in the USA Final Grades (n D 23)

.811**


**Pearson correlation significant at p < .01 level (2-tailed).

students received the highest marks. The overall performance and grading divide between these two groups of students was significant with the students initiating an overwhelming majority of the challenges failing (15/17, 88%) while their more reticent counterparts earned the highest marks (4 As, 1 B, and 1 C). In examining what literacy practices counted when it came to final student performance evaluations, the language practices observed during classroom interaction didn’t factor in assessment practices directly or indirectly. Nearly 90% of the final grade was contingent upon grammar-based worksheets such as subjectverb agreement, punctuation rules, discrete vocabulary exercises, and other formal features of literacy. In most cases, nativeC students did not complete these assignments. The remaining 10% of the grade was based on completion of a daily Opening Activity writing exercise (see Razfar, 2005, for a more detailed account). Nearly all nativeC generation students were in the lowest tier, and the only A students were the recent immigrant, ESL students (Figure 3). Much of the critical multicultural education literature has argued for culturally responsive educational practices and as-

FIGURE 3 Sheltered Class Grade Distribution (N D 23).



371

sessments that are aligned with the literacy practices of nativeC generation students (Darder, 1991; Epstein, 2006; Gay, 2000); yet, the gap in educational attainment continues to grow due to inappropriate assessments of these students who are concentrated in urban schools through out the United States (Teale, 2008). The observed achievement gap between native born English learners and more recent arrivals in the United States in Mr. Sanders’ classroom is a microcosm of broader trends (Harklau, 2000) and raises many critical questions. Given that nativeC generation students regularly initiated ideological, interpretive challenges and engaged in advanced meaning making practices, why is there such a pronounced difference in achievement? Overall, the data showed that Mr. Sanders’ socially organized learning to be responsive, collaborative, and in some respects a community of learners. If one of Mr. Sanders’ learning goals was to explicitly foster such a dialogic classroom (which I can presume to be the case), then the major critique would be that classroom interactions should be re-organized to invite more recently arriving ESL students into the contested discussions. From a sociocritical view, the classroom discourse interactions exhibited potential for third spaces and movement through the zone of proximal development (Gutiérrez, 2008), and one of the best demonstrations of this was the presence of student challenges and contestation of meaning. However, while sociocritical language ideologies mediated classroom interactions, it appears that reductive language ideologies largely mediated assessment practices. One of the limitations of this study is the lack of access to actual student work; however, it is clear that what heavily counted toward overall achievement in Mr. Sanders’ class were literacy activities that emphasized linguistic structure (i.e., grammar worksheets) rather than the observed dialogic inquiry that gave rise to student challenges. Perhaps one of the main reasons recent arrivals did not take the front stage to initiate ideological or interpretive challenges was because they knew what counted and what it means to be a ‘‘good student.’’ Ironically, Mr. Sanders did not perceive these students as ‘‘shy’’ even though they were mostly quiet, but rather viewed the nativeC students as such. Engaging in challenges may have been perceived as unimportant since it was not counted toward grading.


372

A. Razfar

These assessment results when juxtaposed with the classroom observations lead to broader, critical questions about the educational attainment of nativeC students. While Mr. Sanders expressed concern with Latina/o, nativeC students’ commitment to learning and achievement, the reality is that these students expressed high expectations for themselves (see Razfar, 2003). They expected to graduate, go on to college, and some saw themselves as continuing with graduate or professional studies. When this phenomenon is examined at a larger scale similar patterns exist. A national survey conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center (2009) corroborates this troubling trend. ‘‘Native born,’’ second generation, third generation Latinas/os constitutes 2/3 of the Latina/o population between the ages of 16 and 25, and they report the highest expectations in terms of educational attainment and aspirations for higher education compared to foreign born and recently arriving Latinas/os. However, they are the least likely group to be enrolled in high school or college, and ‘‘native-born’’ Latinas/os were more likely to perceive discrimination than ‘‘foreign-born’’ Latinas/os. When respondents were asked for reasons ‘‘knowing less English’’ was cited as a major factor, especially by older respondents over 25 (58%). This is particularly intriguing since most nativeC Latinas/os speak English proficiently as the students in this case study demonstrated. This shows how conflicting language ideologies complicate the lives of nativeC students. Recently arriving immigrant students may have a greater sense of language ideological clarity with respect to what aspects of language count in schools and what aspects do not; further, they have a clearer sense of their native language proficiency, and what needs to be done in English.

Conclusion This case study of a sheltered high school course is intended to highlight a common experience for nativeC and other nondominant linguistic communities in urban schools across the United States that in spite of engaging in sophisticated language practices such as ‘‘challenges,’’ they still do poorly in their class. The assessments of their learning and of their learner identities are often negatively biased and overlook their assets.



373

This analysis draws attention to a significant aspect of the language learning of nativeC students in urban schools, namely, challenges in classroom discourse. Others working with similar populations can benefit from an in-depth case study such as this one by applying the typology of some of the more advanced discursive practices (i.e., challenge practices) in their own settings. This typology also provides a model for practices that are responsive to student voices. However, while these types of interactions are necessary for learning and lead to more dialogic classroom discourse patterns, they are not sufficient for the educational success of nativeC, Latina/o students. It is just as important to explicitly recognize and count them in ways that reposition students in nondeficit ways. One of the limitations of this study is the lack of student perspectives on the practices of challenge and even the teacher’s views on his assessment practices in relation to the observed classroom discourse. Because of the time lapse between data collection and analysis, this type of data was inaccessible; however, this would be an important methodological consideration that should be incorporated in the design of future research. Despite the limitation, this analysis makes the case for ‘critical awareness’ and a more coherent and critical language ideology in nativeC instructional contexts. More specifically, a sociocritical perspective draws attention to the inextricable links between the social organization of learning, critical social thought, and assessment. In this study Mr. Sanders socially organized learning in ways that evidently mediated ideological and interpretive challenges from nativeC students. While the students engaged in critical social thought, the assessment of their classroom performance constructs them as underachieving learners. Teachers and administrators working with nativeC students need to develop this critical awareness of language learning and instruction in order to better understand their learning needs and achieve more equitable outcomes. References Anthony, H. M., & Raphael, T. E. (1987). Using questioning strategies to promote students’ active comprehension of content area material. Occasional Paper No. 109. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.


374

A. Razfar

Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Bloome, D. (2004). Discourse analysis and the study of classroom language and literacy events: A microethnographic perspective. London, England: Routledge. Carlsen, W. S. (1991). Questioning in classrooms: A sociolinguistic perspective. Review of Educational Research, 61, 157–178. Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Christenburg, L., & Kelly, P. P. (1983). Questioning: A path to critical thinking. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication; NCTE. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Collier, V. (1989). How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 23(3), 509–531. Cotton, K. (2001). Classroom questioning. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved from www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/3/cu5.html Cummins, J. (1984). Linguistic minorities and multicultural policy in Canada. In J. R. Edwards (Ed.), Linguistic minorities, policies and pluralism (pp. 80–105). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Darder, A. (1991). Culture and power in the classroom. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey. Davydov, V. V., & Markova, A. A. (1983). A concept of educational activity for school children. Soviet Psychology, 2(2), 50–76. Del Collins, M. (2005). Transcending dualistic thinking in conflict resolution. Negotiation Journal, 21, 263–280. Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Duff, P. A., & Hornberger, N. H. (Eds.). (2008). Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed.), Vol. 8. Language socialization. Boston: Springer. Epstein, K. (2006). A different view of urban schools: Civil rights, critical race theory, and unexplored realities. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. New York, NY: Longman. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. New York, NY: Routledge. Fazey, I. (2010). Resilience and higher order thinking. Ecology and Society, 15(3), 9. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art9/ Flores, B. M. (1993, April). Interrogating the genesis of the deficit view of Latino children in the educational literature during the 20th century. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, Atlanta, GA. Fry, R. (2007, June). How far behind in math and reading are English language learners? Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Gal, S. (1989). Language and political economy. Annual Review Anthropology, 18, 345–367. Gándara, P., & Contreras, P. (2009). The Latino educational crisis: The consequences of failed social policies. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, & practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.



375

Gee, J. P. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London, England: Routledge. Gee, J., & Green, J. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119–169. Gee, J. (2000). Teenagers in new times: A new literacy studies perspective. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43(5), 412–420. Gutiérrez, K., Rymes, B., & Larson, J. (1995). Script, counterscript, and underlife in the classroom: James Brown versus Brown v. Board of Education. Harvard Educational Review, 65(3), 445–471. Gutiérrez, K., Berlin, D., Crosland, K., & Razfar, A. (1999). Social organization of learning classroom observation protocol. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Urban Literacies, Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles. Gutiérrez, K., & Larson, J. (2007). Discussing expanded spaces for learning [profiles and perspectives]. Language Arts, 85, 69–77. Guitiérrez, K. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164. Harklau, L., Losey, K. M., & Siegal, M. (Eds.). (1999). Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Harklau, L. (2000). From ‘good’ kids to the ‘worst’: Representations of English language learners across educational settings. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 35– 67. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140. Irvine, J., & Gal, S. (2000). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In P. Kroskrity (Ed.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities, and identities (pp. 35– 83). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press, James Currey, Oxford. Jaworski, A., Coupland, N., & Galasinski, D. (Eds.). (2004). Metalanguage: Social and ideological perspectives. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Kroskrity, P. V. (2010). Language ideologies: Evolving perspectives. In J.-O. Östman, J. Verschueren, & J. Jaspers (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics highlights: Society and language use (pp. 192–211). Herndon, VA: John Benjamins Publishing. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (1st ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. In B. van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 201–224). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Lopez, M. H. (2009, October). Latinos and education: Explaining the attainment gap. Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://pewhispanic.org/files/ reports/115.pdf


376

A. Razfar

Menchaca, M., & Valencia, R. R. (1990, September). Anglo-Saxon ideologies in the 1920s–1930s: Their impact on the segregation of Mexican students in California. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 21(3), 222–249. Miller, P. H. (2002). Theories of developmental psychology (4th ed., pp. 367–407). New York, NY: Worth. Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (1986). From feelings to grammar. In B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures (pp. 251–272). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E. (1991). Socialization through language and interaction: A theoretical introduction. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 143–147. Ochs, E., & Capps, L. (1996). Narrating the self. Annual Review Anthropology, 25, 19–43. Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Interaction and grammar. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Ornstein, A. C. (1988). Questioning: The essence of good teaching–part II. NAASP Bulletin, 72. Pew Hispanic Center. (2009, December). Between two worlds: How young Latinos come of age in America. Retrieved from http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/ 117.pdf Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. London, England: Longman. Rampton, B., Roberts, C., Leung, C., & Harris, R. (2002). Methodology in the analysis of classroom discourse. Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 373–392. Razfar, A. (2003). Language ideologies in ELL contexts: Implications for Latinos and higher education. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 2(3), 241– 268. Razfar, A. (2005). Language ideologies in practice: Repair and classroom discourse. Linguistics & Education, 16(4), 404–424. Razfar, A., & Rumenapp, J. C. (2011). Developmental context(s): Mediating learning through language ideologies. Human Development, 54(1), 241–269. Rogers, R. (Ed.). (2003). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rogers, R., & Christian, J. (2007). What could I say? A critical discourse analysis of the construction of race in children’s literature. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 10(1), 21–46. Shannon, S. (1995). The hegemony of English: A case study of one bilingual classroom as a site of resistance. Linguistics and Education, 7(3), 175–200. Skovsmose, O. (1994). Towards a philosophy of critical mathematics education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Street, B. (1993). Introduction: The new literacy studies. In B. Street (Ed.), Cross-cultural approaches to literacy (pp. 1–21). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Teale, W. H. (2008). What counts? Literacy assessment in urban schools. The Reading Teacher, 62(4), 358–361.



377

Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. New York, NY: State University of New York Press. van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and power: Contributions to critical discourse studies. Houndsmills, England: Palgrave MacMillan. Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding pragmatics. London, England: Arnold. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2001). Methods of critical discourse analysis. London, England: Sage. Zinn, H. (2005). A people’s history of the United States: 1492–present. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.