SUPPORTING ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

SUPPORTING ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS’ WRITING ABILITIES Exploring Third Spaces Lori Czop Assaf Texas State University

Research on the sociocultural processes of writing and its impact on writing instruction in the middle grades has gained increased attention in educational research (Prior, 2006). Less attention has been devoted to research on writing with middle grade English learners (henceforth EL) who are mainstreamed into English only classrooms. National assessment data, reports, and literature reviews indicate that this is an area that is sorely in need of exploration (Fitzgerald, 2006; National Center for Education Statistics, 2012; National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges, 2003; Samway, 2006). The focus of this paper is to examine how one teacher created and used third spaces in her middle school classroom to support her EL’s academic writing abilities. Research on the writing process approach has influenced writing instruction in the middle grades (Prior, 2006), yet researchers argue that this approach assumes familiarity with White middle class discourse patterns, thus

possibly leaving EL unclear about what is expected (Gebhard, Harman, & Seger, 2007; Samway, 2006; Schleppegrell, 2004). Too often EL are left unsupported in their efforts to integrate their linguistic and cultural knowledge(s) within the specific forms of writing required in schools (Dyson, 2003; Moll & González, 1994). Among the studies documenting writing instruction with EL in middle school settings (August & Shanahan, 2006), there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that writing development is sociocultural. This perspective suggests that EL’s writing needs to be understood through social networks and linguistic resources rather than the rigid constructs that typically define acceptable forms of writing (Bakhtin, 1986; Dyson, 2001, 2003; Hicks, 2002). Third spaces, defined as hybrid cultural spaces that create opportunities for students to navigate and develop bridges between their linguistic and cultural resources with school discourses (Gutierrez, Baquedano-Lopez, &

• Lori Czop Assaf, Texas State University 601 University Dr. E-mail: [email protected] Middle Grades Research Journal, Volume 9(1), 2014, pp. 1–17 Copyright © 2014 Information Age Publishing, Inc.

ISSN 1937-0814 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

2

Turner, 1997; Moje et al., 2004), serve as the guiding framework for this study. Through a third space lens, I examine the complexities and demands of academic language learning in middle school. The research on academic language and literacy instruction in secondary classrooms has dramatically expanded in the last few years (Hakuta, Butler, & Witt, 2000; Schleppegrell, 2004) particularly as it has been shown to be a barrier for EL as they work to access the curriculum (Townsend, 2009). Schleppegrell (2004) explains that as students progress through school, the language and literacy demands of EL’s academic work increase. In the report on academic literacy for adolescent EL, Short and Fitzsimmons (2007) explain, “Secondary English Language learners must perform double the work” of native English speakers while being held to the same accountability standards as their native English-speaking peers (p. 1). Writing is one academic literacy expectation for all students and central to most disciplines (Cummins, 2000; Wong, Fillmore, & Snow, 2003). According to Short and Fitzsimmons (2007), acquiring academic language and literacy includes the ability to (a) read, write, and orally communicate for school; (b) varies from subject to subject; (c) requires knowledge of multiple genres of text, purposes for text use, and text media; (d) influenced by students’ literacies in contexts out of school and; (e) influenced by students personal, social, and cultural experiences. In light of this research, I highlight how Jenae, a seventh-grade English language arts teacher (all names are pseudonyms), created third spaces that valued her EL’s backgrounds while connecting these to the structural organization and literacy demands required of school writing (Gebhard et al., 2007; Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, & Tejeda, 2000; Moje et al., 2004). This study is based on findings from the second year (2008-2009) of a 3-year project that documented how middle school teachers, who participated in a professional development institute in the summer of 2008, enacted culturally responsive writing principles and practices in their classrooms. Funded

Middle Grades Research Journal

Vol. 9, No. 1, 2014

by the National Writing Project, the goal of the project was to help teachers improve the academic writing achievement of their EL. The overarching research question guiding this study was: How does one middle school English language arts teacher create third spaces to mediate her EL’s academic writing?

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK While third space theory (Gee, 1996; Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, & Turner, 1997; Moje et al., 2004; Soja, 1996) provides the overarching framework for this study, it is guided by sociocultural learning theory (Bakhtin, 1986; Vygotsky, 1978) to help explain the importance of discourse and mediation. A sociocultural perspective provides insight into how language and literacy are interconnected and how they are socially, historically, and culturally constructed. Third space helps explain how teachers and students bring together home networks (first space) with school networks (second space) while constructing a separate space (third space) that recognizes various experiences and discourses (McCarthey & Moje, 2002). While some research examines third space in physical terms (Soja, 1996), I define third space as a bridge or navigational space that allows for alternative discourses and challenges and reshapes literacy practices (Gee, 1996; Gutierrez, Baquedano-Lopez, & Turner, 1997, Moje, 2004). Through third space theory, this research investigates how one teacher moved between spaces, thus providing insights toward developing a new writing pedagogy for EL in the middle grades.

Third Space Third space refers to classroom spaces that allow for the local, situated knowledge of students to inform and interact with current ideas about language and literacy instruction (Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, & Turner, 1997; Moje et al., 2004). It is a conceptualization of a place where students’ funds of knowl-

Supporting English Language Learners’ Writing Abilities

3

edge (Moll & Gonzalez, 1994) are utilized as part of the curriculum to create a hybrid notion about what it means to teach and learn from within and beyond the local community. These funds are what students bring and use within a classroom space. Moll and Gonzalez (1994) encouraged teachers to connect classrooms to outside resources so that classrooms become a more advanced context for teaching and learning. These funds from home and/or peers shape literacy events and identities (Moje, 2004). In essence, a new language and pedagogy emerge to create the spaces where both students and teacher are situated as learners and teaching is not dictated by mandates but by authentic opportunities to explore ideas and resources, thus creating new knowledge. Gutiérrez (2008) notes how literacy in third spaces can highlight “attention to contradictions in and between texts lived and studied, institutions (e.g., the classroom, the academy), and sociocultural practices, locally experienced and historically influenced” (p. 149). Sociocultural learning theory helps to explain how third spaces can be zones for proximal development (Gutierrez, 2008) and mediate academic literacy demands. Vygotsky’s (1978) zone of proximal development, defined as the “level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” positions the teacher as a mediator for learning (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). Therefore, the teacher plays an important role in EL’s academic writing (establishing context for writing, offering topics/subtopics, providing vocabulary) and can be viewed as a coauthor. When students are encouraged to bring knowledge from familiar aspects of their lives into the classroom, there is the possibility that they will learn more deeply and in new ways (Moje et al., 2004). Third spaces can help researchers and educators understand how teachers mediate and scaffold the academic literacy demands EL experience in the middle grades. Moje et al. (2004) identified three categories of third spaces: (1) third space as bridges built between home and school literacies,

(2) third space as navigational, in which students learn to navigate their literacies with those of school, and (3) third space as transformational, where the intersection of home and school literacies leads to new knowledge and new ways of learning. A number of recent studies use Moje et al.’s (2004) taxonomy to explore third space with a range of diverse learners (Fitts, 2009; Levy, 2008; McGinnis, 2007; Turner, 2005). For example, Fitts’ (2009) study described how teachers in a fifth grade dual language Spanish program were able to create third spaces by (1) drawing from students’ local knowledge of sports to understand statistics; (2) providing opportunities to navigate and develop biculturalism through investigating and analyzing the differential status value given to diverse linguistic and cultural forms; and (3) transforming practice by privileging Spanish dominant students’ explanations for code switching as a way to explore bilingualism and biculturalism. Fitts’ argues that these practices created “third spaces” for true development of bilingualism and biculturalism. In another middle grade study, McGinnis (2007) explored how inquiry-based writing projects provided third spaces for her multilingual students to draw on their social worlds and move across linguistic, visual, and physical modes of literacy learning. The projects created opportunities for students to engage in and to navigate their own interests while participating in the academic demands of schoolbased writing. By using the inquiry-based writing projects, the teacher transformed the divide between social and cultural aspects of an “English only” curriculum while building on students’ cultural and linguistic resources. Drawing on this body of work, writing in middle grade classrooms should include: (a) building bridges between teacher and students, and between the academic and social worlds of both; (b) teachers who are responsive to the linguistic and cultural heritage of students and that use of language and culture as cognitive tools to navigate through a variety of discourses; (c) opportunities to transform and create new knowledge and curriculum;

4

and (d) teachers who are informed and willing to support students while learning from them. The study presented in this article seeks to contribute to this body of research and focuses on how third spaces facilitate the academic writing of middle grade EL.

METHODS Participants and Setting Jenae Jackson (all names are pseudonyms) is a White, female in her early 30s who has taught seventh-grade and coached girls’ volleyball at Chepe Middle School for seven years. Jenae was purposely chosen for this study because of her reputation as an expert teacher in her school and district. Jenae used reading and writing workshop (Atwell, 1998; Calkins, 1994) and genre studies (Nia, 1999; Ray, 1999) while the rest of her colleagues used traditional literacy methods (e.g. worksheets, basals, formulaic essays, and test writing prompts). As part of this research, Jenae volunteered to attend a weeklong professional development on academic writing instruction. The professional development program titled Culturally Mediated Writing Instruction advocated the use of students’ funds of knowledge (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2005) and inquiry (Short & Harste, 1996) as an integral aspect to writing instruction. I wanted to understand the ways in which Jenae’s instruction mediated EL’s academic writing. Six focus students (three males and three females) from Jenae’s classroom were purposely selected for this study because of their varying levels of English proficiency, their different experiences with ESL support in school, and their academic growth on reading and writing assignments. Even though all six students spoke Spanish at home with their parents and grandparents, they were all placed in English only ELA classrooms since sixth grade. All six students passed the state level test in English the previous year. Chepe Middle School, situated in a small suburban community 20 miles outside of a


Vol. 9, No. 1, 2014

large southwestern urban city, sits in the middle of a growing rural community surrounded by newly built houses and older ranch style homes. The majority of students who attend Chepe Middle School are Spanish dominant and self-identified as Mexican-American. With over 95% of the students on free and reduced lunch, Chepe Middle School has also been identified as a Title I school and receives additional federal funding. Jenae’s classroom resembled the school’s demographics. She had eighteen students, seven females and eleven males between the ages of 12 and 13 years old. Nine students identified as native Spanish speakers who spoke English and Spanish at home. And seventeen students identified themselves as U.S. born Mexican-Americans.

Data Collection and Analysis I used an ethnographic approach to data collection (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw 1995), spending intensive and extensive time in Jenae’s classroom and gathering data from multiple sources. Starting in September, I observed Jenae’s fourth period English language arts seventh grade classroom once a week. From January until the end of April I observed Jenae’s classroom approximately two to three times a week for 5-6 hours each day. As a participant observer in Jenae’s classroom, I collected multiple sources of data such as (a) daily field notes; (b) audio and videotapes of whole group guided reading lessons, mini lessons, peer and teacher writing conferences; (c) interviews with the Jenae and six focus students; (d) monthly email reflections sent from Jenae for the duration of the study; (e) notes from daily conversations with the other teachers at the school and; (f) student literacy artifacts and writing samples. Analysis began immediately after the first observation by extending field notes and writing analytical memos (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993). After each observation I interviewed Jenae about her instruction. Systematic analysis began in early May after the data collection was complete. I began


5

by chronologically sequencing observations and interviews. At this time, I invited a graduate student to help analyze the data. We used constant-comparative method (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) by reading and rereading the data and identifying units of words or phrases that related to academic literacy instruction for EL. We developed codes, recoded, analyzed patterns, created and tested categories (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Data analysis was ongoing and took place over several stages. First we read and reread all of the data individually. We used constant comparative method by reading and rereading the data and identifying units of words or phrases related to the sources, strategies, and ways in which Jenae mediated her students’ academic language learning. Second we organized repeated phrases and codes into categories and titles and descriptions for each category—using the participants’ words as much as possible. Each category was reexamined, redefined, and combined with similar categories until initial themes emerged (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). For instance, an emerging theme was “creating local literacies.” Based on this emerging theme, I returned to the full data set, identified additional evidence, and wrote descriptive summaries of how Jenae created instructional posters and how those practices provided third spaces for students to navigate their academic language abilities. Finally, we compared our analytic notes and identified specific examples for each emerging theme. To best illustrate each category, we used Jenae’s words as much as possible. Before all of the analysis was complete, my graduate student graduated and took a job as an elementary school coordinator. I completed the final analysis and write up of this research.

which Jenae created third spaces in her classroom to mediate her EL’s academic writing: Identity Shaping: We as Writers-Writing About Our Own Lives; Understanding Academic Language; and Inquiry Driven Discourse.

FINDINGS I present the findings in two sections beginning with a description of Jenae’s classroom and schedule, which I gathered through field notes and interviews. In the second section, I describe the three themes related to the ways in

Jenae’s Classroom Instruction According to a teacher survey completed at the beginning of the study, Jenae identifies herself as a writer and believes “it is just part of me.” When describing her instruction, Jenae explained, “My instruction is student-centered, based on the needs of my students.” Jenae believes that successful learners must feel capable to take risks, make connections across their experiences and texts, and make choices about their reading and writing. She values dialogue in her classroom and believes that students should engage in collaboration with their peers in order to become better writers. She believes students learn best when invited to explore their world and the landscape of school. Throughout the study, I witnessed Jenae enact her beliefs as a writer and studentcentered teacher. She wrote daily with the students and spoke about her self as a writer. Students sat in small groups and were always engaged in cooperative learning activities and small group discussions. In the findings, I highlight other aspects of Jenae’s beliefs and values as a teacher through her instructional practices and the ways in which she positioned her students. Jenae’s classes were on a blocked schedule. During this time, Jenae used reading and writing workshop and inquiry-based units consistently throughout the year. On a typical day during the study the students participated in a variety of literacy activities. See Table 1 for description of literacy activities. During whole group guided reading, the students received their own copy of the assigned book, found a comfortable seat in the room (on the floor, in a beanbag, across a group of desks) and followed along while Jenae read the book aloud. During this whole group guided reading time, Jenae led students

6


Vol. 9, No. 1, 2014

TABLE 1 Literacy Activities in Blocked Schedule Reading workshop

Students read self-selected books, wrote individual responses in their reading notebooks, shared summaries or critiques of their readings, and conferenced with the teacher

Direct teach

Teacher led explicit lessons of a variety of reading or writing skills, strategies, and literary analysis.

Lunch Whole group guided reading and discussion

Students and teacher read one text together and discussed

Writing workshop

Students wrote self-selected pieces based on a genre or literature unit

Peer and teacher conferences

The students participated in teacher/peer conferences, published their work and shared with the class

Free choice

Students completed work for any previous assignment

in a discussion about the book, stopping periodically to ask questions or to model personal connections. While much of this discussion was teacher lead, the students were highly engaged and often built off of each other’s comments and questions. Each six weeks the students in Jenae’s class took district mandated benchmark tests in reading and writing. These benchmark tests resemble the state mandated tests or were previously released tests from prior years. Once or twice a week, Jenae spent 10-15 minutes practicing test-taking skills. Typically, the students were given a short test passage. They were required to read and annotate the passage and answer the questions. Jenae regularly reviewed the text answers with the whole group. When students took a writing benchmark, Jenae reminded them to write about their own lives when responding to the prompts.

Identity Shaping: We as Writers-Writing About Our Own Lives Jenae provided her students opportunities to build bridges between their home and school literacies thus supporting their identities as writers. From the first day of school the students in Jenae’s seventh-grade ELA class were encouraged to read and write about topics they cared about. In one of our first interviews

Jenae explained, “They are writing their visual memoirs. I want them to think about their lives and write from the heart. I always push them to ‘go there’ meaning to write heart felt topics that they really care about.” Jenae required her students to complete a visual memoir (Atwell, 1998). She taught her students how to identify their personal ‘territories’ or life experiences and use those territories to develop six short memoir essays paired with visual images. Jenae often modeled her own territories in class and read her writing aloud, taking questions from the students about her personal life. At the same time, she modeled her reading processes and encouraged students to ‘go there’ in their writing. For example, during the visual memoir unit, Jenae shared the book she was reading titled A Piece of Cake: A Memoir by Cupcake Brown. She read a section from the book that described Cupcake’s description of finding her mother dead from an overdose. She shared, “It took a lot of courage for the author to write about her life in such a personal way. She really had to ‘go there.’” When students took risks in their writing, Jenae publicly praised them and used them as examples to others. For instance, one afternoon when students were working on their visual memoirs Azura conferenced with Jenae about one of her territories. Azura’s cousin was accidently shot and killed by her brother.


7

Azura was angry and shared her writing with Jenae. Jenae asked permission to share Azura’s personal writing with the class. Jenae announced, “I am so proud of Azura because she is taking a risk and writing about something very scary and important to her.” Azura believed that writing about her life would help her change for the better. During an interview, Azura shared how writing helped her:

view of a writer. I want them to view themselves as writers and know they are part of a larger, amazing group of other writers.” Each day that I spent with Jenae, she pointed out past or current students who she considered talented writers. As we walked down the hall to lunch or raced to get outside during a fire drill, Jenae would point at a student and describe: “She is such an amazing writer. She wrote about her uncle who went to Afghanistan” or “Last year he wrote about dropping out of a gang. It would have made you cry.” Jenae constantly exposed her students to other writers (peers and experienced writers) and invited them to see themselves as members of the writing club. Much like Frank Smith’s literacy club (1988), Jenae wanted her students to become members of a larger community of writers. She shared information about her favorite writers or talked about Chepe teachers who were writers: “Mr. Seeza is a song writer. He writes and performs with his band. Have any of you ever heard his writing?” Likewise, when past students dropped in to say ‘hello’ or give Jenae a hug (usually during first lunch), Jenae introduced them as amazing, talented writers, and invited them to join the class. When invited into the classroom, these past students were directed to peer conference with Jenae’s current students during writers’ workshop or share a piece of writing they were working on in another class. To give students authentic experiences as writers and help them build bridges between their in and out of school identities, Jenae launched the first Chepe Coffee House. During a school-wide literacy night, Jenae created a pseudo coffee house on the stage decorated with couches, large comfy chairs, bean bags, pillows, rugs, and table lamps. She brewed decaf coffee and offered lemonade and cookies. Students and their parents were invited to read their writing in an open forum often referred to as “open mike.” The week before Chepe Coffee House, Jenae explained who would be reading their writing and how important it was for her students to attend. “ Author is going to read a piece she wrote this summer

I: What have you learned this year? A: I am a good writer because I use my now experiences—just yesterday I wrote something difficult for me. I: What was that? A: I wrote about how difficult it is for me to walk away from a fight. But I don’t want to get in no more trouble. I need to stay good and push myself not to fight. I: Good for you. A: Ms. Jackson (Jenae) has taught us to write about our now experiences and things that are hard and it will help us get along in this world. I: Has it helped you? A: Oh yeah. Are you kidding?

Taking risks in one’s writing was important to Jenae because she believed that “students care more about what they write if they take risks. I want them to use writing to understand their life and to know that all writers build on their life experiences.” At the same time, writing about their identities became a resource for the students in Jenae’s classroom. They connected their personal experiences to multiple genres of writing, even test writing. For example, when the students were discussing the state mandated test (seventh-grade writing), Lali, a very conscientious student, shared her worries about taking the test. She questioned, “What if I don’t know what to write. What if I don’t have any territories to add to the prompt?” Another student responded assuring her that “you will always have a territory to write from. It is just what we do.” At the same time, Jenae believed her students should “find themselves as writers.” She explained, “I have a passion for writing. And I want my students to write from the point of a

8

in the writing institute. I am going to read some poetry, Mrs. Demotry is going to read and Mr. Elva.” As the students grumbled over the idea of reading their writing to other students and parents Jenae reminded them, “It is not like you are going to be in front of people who don’t like to write…. Everyone of you are writers whether you like it or not and I hope you decide to join us.” On the night of Chepe Coffee House, 45 of Jenae’s students attended including 15 from the classroom reported in this study. With parents, teachers, and friends over 60 people crammed into the transformed stage and read their writing to fellow writers. Being a writer also meant that students were expected to learn from other writers. To help students “read like writers” Jenae consistently used mentor texts (Ray, 1999) and showcased how authors used different craft techniques. Much like reading a mentor text like a writer to gain a deeper understanding of writing techniques, Jenae required her students to learn from each other’s writing. For instance, when students read their fear papers aloud in authors’ chair (Graves, 2003), Jenae requested that students actively listen and make note of the words and phrases the student writer (sharing in author’s chair) used to illustrate a tone of fear. They then shared their notes with the student writer. Jenae also intentionally created opportunities for her students to learn from each other by holding teacher, peer, and group conferences. For example, one day Ramón signed up for a teacher conference. Jenae invited Taylor and Enzo to join the conference. As Ramón read his paper, Jenae encouraged the other two boys to ask questions and write down any comments that would help Ramón’s writing. She told the boys “As readers, I want you to listen and tell Ramón if it works.” After the group conferences, Jenae asked “So, what did you learn from Ramón today?” This conference structure created a space to scaffold students’ revision and editing skills while also allowing students to gain knowledge from each other and give each other positive feedback.


Vol. 9, No. 1, 2014

Understanding Academic Language Jenae immersed her students in reading and writing activities that focused on developing concepts, exploring sentence structure and grammar, and understanding metalinguistic knowledge. Through the use of these activities, Jenae helped her students to navigate the academic demands of the English Language Arts curriculum with the their own family connections and personal stories. Over the course of one school year, Jenae taught four inquiry units: (1) Understanding Our Lives: Creating Visual Memoirs; (2) Exploring Fear Through Short Stories and Poetry; (3) Understanding a Utopian Society; and (4) Looking Back at Social Groups. Each unit focused on multiple learning objectives by reading quality literature and applying multiple writing strategies and literary analysis to personal writing. She used multimodal texts and coconstructed local texts with her students for each unit. I will highlight the exploring fear through short stories and poetry unit to demonstrate how Jenae mediated students’ learning of concept knowledge, structural knowledge, and metalinguistic understanding. See Table 2 for an example of learning objectives with fear unit. Jenae and her students read several short stories and poems (e.g. The Raven by Edgar Allen Poe, The Veldt by Ray Bradbury, Monsters Are Due on Maple Street). They viewed videos of The Veldt and Monsters Are Due on Maple Street and studied visual images of scary settings or objects. Jenae taught the texts sequentially according to their level of complexity starting with The Veldt and ending with Monsters Are Due on Maple Street. She explained, When reading the The Veldt the students know it feels scary but they don’t know why. We reread this text several times to target the words that make this short story eerie and uncomfortable. Next we read The Raven and then Monsters Are Due on Maple Street because in both of these texts, deeper levels of apprehension and paranoia hide in the story.


9

TABLE 2 Fear Unit Overview Context or Lesson

Texts(s)

Skill/Strategy or Literacy analysis

• Students read The Veltd by Ray Bradbury to identify mood, tone, and plot. • Whole group read aloud.

• A projected picture of a high plateau with African animals (elephants, zebras, lions). • Copied short story of The Veldt.

• Predictions, inferences, summarizing, making textual personal and world connections. • Identify mood and tone of this piece.

• Read The Raven by • Audio version of Edgar Allen Poe to The Raven. identify mood, tone, • Copied short story and plot. of The Raven. • Whole group read • Sentence from The aloud. Raven.

Direct Teach

Connection to Writing

• Students complete • Students create plot plot diagram on The diagram for own Veldt. fear idea. • Students identify • Students use fear and define fear words in their own words. writing.

• Predictions, infer• Students annotate • Students use fear ences, summarizpoem-identifying words in their own ing, making textual, images, fear words, writing. personal, and world analogies, and met- • Students used menconnections. Idenaphors. tor sentence structify mood and tone • Students identify ture in their own of this piece. and define fear writing. words. • Analyzed sentence for use of colon.

After reading multiple, multimodal texts, the students discussed the concepts of gore, apprehension, and paranoia used in the different texts. Students identified and underlined words and phrases that illustrated a tone of fear. Students listed their tone words on a graphic organizer and defined those words by using a dictionary. Students were typically requested to turn to a partner and use the new vocabulary word in a sentence or come up with a visual representation of the word. By identifying tone words and defining these words to eventually be used in their writing, Jenae explicitly taught vocabulary and metalinguistic understanding. See Figure 1 for example of students’ tone words. To mediate her students’ academic language needs, Jenae and her students cocreated a learning poster in the room with tone words for students to refer to when reading and writing. Jenae and her students used a language experience approach (Yoon, 2013) while co-creating these posters. The language experience approach invites students to dictate their understanding of a specific idea or concept while the teacher writes their words on a large chart paper. As the students worked through their

understanding and used language to make sense of new vocabulary or other linguistic terms they were encouraged to bridge their prior and new knowledge. These coconstructed posters supported students’ academic language and helped them to transfer these new ideas to their own writing. See Figure 2 for example of a learning poster. Following a thorough explanation of tone words, Jenae and her students investigated sentences from each of the texts and analyzed their grammatical structure and purpose (Anderson, 2004). For instance Jenae wrote the following sentence on the board and read it aloud: The shadow flickered on George Hadley’s upturned, sweating face. As she read the sentence aloud, she invited students to share what they noticed. Carrie replied, “There’s a comma miss and some of those words describe other words.” Enzo added, “When you read it aloud I can see this dude Hadley’s face. It is scary man” (Field Notes, 10/17/08). Jenae spent two days exploring this sentence with her students and asked them to apply similar sentence structures in their writing notebooks. Students experimented with the modeled sentence struc-

10


Vol. 9, No. 1, 2014

FIGURE 1 Tone Words

ture and discussed how it would help their writing. Following a thorough literary analysis and exploration of the fear texts and sentence structures, students met in small groups to share personal fear stories. Since most of Jenae’s students come from Mexican heritages, many of them shared renditions of popular Mexican ghost stories such as La Llorona (The Weeping Woman) or the mythical creature el Cucuy sometimes referred to as the boogie man. Others shared stories related to pop culture, urban myths, and recent movie topics. One student told me about his fear paper in an interview. “My favorite paper so far is Lurk of Death because it is scary and there is a lot of action. I got my idea from watching the television show America’s Most Wanted. I used a real fugitive from that show and added in a lot

of killing.” The students were encouraged to elaborate on details and use their own language to explain how the story was passed down in their own families. Jenae told her students to build on each others’ stories when writing their own. “As writers we can steal from other writers. So when you hear someone else’s fear story, it is OK to steal parts of the story and make it your own.” In all of the units and academic writing assignments, Jenae used a variety of multimodal texts and genres to explicitly teach academic language and literacy skills as well as focus on strategies such as mood, tone, humor, sarcasm, imagery. She explained how grammar functions in specific genres and helped students make connections while reading. She pointed out content specific vocabulary and sentence structure that supported students’


11

FIGURE 2 Tone Word Learning Poster

understanding of metalinguistic understanding. At the same time, Jenae and her students cocreated learning posters that served as additional text supports. The learning posters or what I call local texts helped students navigate between the academic expectations of Jenae’s English language arts classroom and the students’ own language abilities.

Inquiry-Driven Discourse Jenae believed inquiry was a driving force for organizing her literacy instruction and provided opportunities for students to question their beliefs and develop a wondering stance

(Lindfors, 1999). By using an inquiry or wondering stance, Jenae created a third space as transformational where the intersection of home and school literacies leads to new knowledge and ways of learning. She followed an inquiry-based curricular framework (Short et al., 1996) when designing and teaching her literature units. Leaning on this framework, Jenae designed each unit to help students: (1) explore and build on their prior knowledge and cultural experiences; (2) question an issue or frame a question; (3) search and investigate a strategy or skill by reading, writing, and listening; (4) synthesize information through dialogue and writing; (5) present and implement

12

findings through multimedia representations; and (6) assess growth and learning. Jenae modeled each component of the framework and provided a variety of collaborative opportunities for students to discuss their ideas and problem solve. During a typical whole group guided reading, Jenae modeled questioning strategies and think a louds. However she rarely asked literal questions. Instead she posed authentic questions that led students to participate in further conversations and questioning. For example, when the students discussed The Giver (Lowery, 1993) and Jenae shared, “It is interesting to me how his (Jonas’) mother responded to the release. I wonder why she responded like that?” Over the course of the year, I noticed the students used similar inquiry talk with their peers. In the next section, I illustrate how Jenae used the unit Understanding a Utopian Society to create spaces for her students to engage in inquirydriven talk. Jenae created the Understanding a Utopian Society to help her students negotiate the complexities of a utopian society and to write a narrative essay on personal freedoms. The students participated in multiple reading and writing activities around the text The Giver (Lowery, 1993) and a variety of multimodal mentor texts such as digital images, Internet websites, clips from movies such as Truman and Pleasantville, and fiction and nonfiction texts, all focused on examples and descriptions of modern day utopian societies. These texts served as vehicles for rich discussions challenging students to reflect on their beliefs and those articulated in The Giver. In the conversations noted below, I highlight two small group discussions to demonstrate the ways in which students used inquiry to create their own utopian teams and discuss the rules, expectations, problems, clothing, housing, and economics of their society. The first discussion served as a pre-reading/writing activity; the second discussion a post reading activity. Jenae’s goals for both discussions were to scaffold students’ comprehension of The Giver, to interpret the tensions of living in a utopian society, and to


Vol. 9, No. 1, 2014

help students conceptualize the ideals of a society in order to write their narrative essays. Jenae explained, If they can apply it to the fact that the world in which Jonas lives is a utopian society and everyone comes to that idea is ideal. The ideal is what you make of it and that ideal isn’t necessarily everyone’s ideal. So I guess I want them to understand the conflict and tension involved in creating a utopian society and bring that back to our reading and their essays. (Interview 1/8/09)

Five student leaders were chosen to create their utopian teams. I focused on Ramón’s team made up of five boys and one girl. This group and their two group discussions are highlighted because they exemplify how Jenae created transformative spaces that enabled her students to build on their personal experiences and cultural identities to negotiate new understandings. Ramón’s team drew on a discourse of gangsters, guns, and girls as they took up and resisted issues of power in order to make sense of the complexities of a utopian society. Taylor began the first discussion by suggesting there should be “only true gangsters” in the society. The other boys agreed adding comments such as “you have to own your own gun” and “expensive cars.” In this initial interaction, the students consistently privileged a discourse of guns, gangsters and girls. In fact, when Enzo asked, “What about good drinking water?” The other students laughed, dismissing his suggestion. Then Taylor added, “Dude, there needs to be more girls than guys. We need to each have several girls. We need to have a girl on every corner!” The boys excitedly agreed and added comments such as “lots of girls” and “partying all the time with beautiful broads.” Jenae stood listening to the group and interjected, I think Taylor has discovered an important issue that you are going to have to talk about. You only have one girl in your group. Are you all going to share Azura? The ratio


between boys and girls is going to be an issue here. How are you going to solve that?

Azura shouted, “No way! You can’t all have me. No way!” In this example, the young men appropriated gangs, guns, and girls as violent and sexual objects possibly influenced by popular media that glamorizes male dominance and sexuality. While Jenae listened, she calmly recognized and validated the students’ discourse (a discourse commonly conflicted with typical school discourse) by mimicking their language, asking questions, and pushing her students to renegotiate and reframe their ideals. Jenae’s willingness to take up the topic of girls as sexual objects can be read as her belief that this discourse, potentially sensitive and sexist, has the potential to help students interrogate biases and prejudices while comprehending the complexities of a utopian society. While Jenae did not spend more time helping her students question their biases on a deeper level, she did provide a space for these issues to come to the surface. At the same time, by encouraging students to their cultural resources (interest, knowledge, and teen language about guns, gangs, and girls) Jenae provided a space to mediate her students’ writing. She explained, “I want them to connect their writing to their personal lives and to reimagine what it means to be free. I want them to see this issue from different perspectives.” This discussion also provided a space for more empowerment and peer negotiation. For instance, Azura disputed her peers when she stated “I do not like having girls on every corner. What about me?” Azura was angry and argued that she and her friends would not want to live in the boys’ utopian society. Enzo tried to pacify Azura by stating, “But you are our sister.” Azura rejected his idea and replied, “No way! I am not your sister!” Tim also challenged the group when he shared, “I don’t really like the gun part.” The others debated: A: I like guns because you have to protect yourself. T: What is so perfect about it?

13

A: What if someone came into our community and they tried to take over everything? What are we going to do? R: What if Iraqis came to our home and triedE: What if a gang came by and tried to do a drive by? T: We need guns to kill them. A: At least one on hand. T: I like guns. But maybe a knife.

This discussion enabled Tim to disrupt and interrogate the need for guns and created a space for the other students to reconsider their ideals. It also allowed Azura to challenge sexist discourse and revoice her identity in the group. While Jenae did not share the details of this discussion with the whole class, she did provide an intimate space within this group to question and challenge sexism and violence. In this last conversation, the students move beyond their own rules and regulations and question the book’s notions of equity and justice when Ramón shared that he didn’t understand why people were “released” (a form of euthanasia for elders and some young babies) in the story. Azura agreed, “Why do they have to kill them? Why can’t they just let them go out into the world?” Tim added, “They don’t want to kill they just want to be perfect.” Taylor pointed out, “And there are only a few rules in our society and there is a lot in theirs.” Faced with challenges to their familiar discourses (gangs, guns, and girls) the students begin to examine the limitations of guns and institutional regulations. Their growing awareness of these institutional forces on their lives led these students to rethink, amend, and revise their beliefs about a utopian society.

DISCUSSION In this study I document the creation and use of three kinds of third spaces (1) third space as bridges built between home and school literacies, (2) third space as navigation in which students learn to navigate their literacies with those of school, and (3) third space as

14

transformational where the intersection of home and school literacies leads to new knowledge and new ways of learning (Moje et al., 2004). By building on students’ identities as writers and encouraging them to step out of their comfort zones, Jenae mediated a bridge for her students to connect their personal, outof-school lives with the academic demands of school writing and literacy learning (Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, & Turner, 1997). She consistently built on her students’ funds of knowledge (Moll & González, 1994), allowing them to invest in their academic identities and engage in academic language practices that were both meaningful and authentic. As students were afforded opportunities or spaces to bridge their cultural and linguistic knowledge and use each other as resources, they came to see themselves differently. Much like Moje’s (2004) work, Jenae created spaces where both she and her students were situated as learners and teaching was merely dictated by mandates but by authentic opportunities to explore ideas and resources, thus creating new knowledge. Through inquiry-based units and reading a variety of multimodal texts, Jenae created spaces for her students to negotiate their linguistic, visual, and cultural modes of literacy learning with traditional, school-based objectives. These units provided students with a unique way of exploring author’s purpose, genre, grammar, and vocabulary across a variety of texts while UWRRQTVKPIUVWFGPVUKPVJGKT \QPGU QH RTQZKOCN FGXGNQROGPV Gutiérrez, 2008). Learning posters cocreated by Jenae and her students offered additional linguistic support and allowed students to navigate their own language resources in order to make connections across topics and units. Inquiry-based discussions and collaborative groupings provided examples of transformative opportunities where students generated new understandings among competing discourses and illustrated how Jenae valued and built on students’ resources while accomplishing purposeful academic goals of school (Moje et al., 2004).+PVJGGZCORNGQHVJGUOCNNITQWR FKUEWUUKQP CDQWV 6JG )KXGT .QYGT[


Vol. 9, No. 1, 2014

CPF WVQRKCP UQEKGVKGU C HGY QH VJG UVWFGPVU UVCTVGF VQ GZRTGUU VJGKT FKUEQOHQTV YKVJ VJG QDLGEVKHKECVKQP QH [QWPI YQOGP CPF OGFKC KOCIGUQHIWPUCPFXKQNGPEG5QOGCTVKEWNCVGF YJ[VJG[UVTWIINGFYKVJVJGUGRTGLWFKEGUCPF CRRGCTGFVQUJKHVKPVJGKTVJKPMKPI1VJGTUFKF PQV 9JKNG ,GPCG ETGCVGF C URCEG HQT VJGUG KUUWGU VQ EQOG VQ VJG UWTHCEG KV CRRGCTU VJCV UJGOKUUGFCPQRRQTVWPKV[VQTGXKUKVKUUWGUQH UGZKUO CPF RQYGT YKVJ VJG YJQNG ENCUUō CNNQYKPI JGT UVWFGPVU VQ ETKVKECNN[ GZCOKPG JQYVJGKTDGNKGHUCDQWVUQEKGV[CTGKPHNWGPEGF D[ OGFKC 9KVJ NKOKVGF VKOG KP GCEJ ENCUU RGTKQF ,GPCG UVTWIINGF YKVJ YJGVJGT UJG UJQWNF EQPVKPWG GZRNQTKPI VJGUG KUUWGU YKVJ JGTENCUUQTOQXGQPVQVJGPGZVCEVKXKV[5JG EJQUGVQOQXGQPDWVKPTGVTQURGEVUJGTGITGV VGFPQVGPICIKPICNNQHJGTUVWFGPVUKPCGZRNKEKV FKUEWUUKQPCDQWVYJGTGKOCIGUQHICPIUIKTNU CPFFTWIUQTKIKPCVGCPFJQYOGFKCJCUUMGYGF VJGUVWFGPVUŏTGCNKV[6JKUKUCPKORQTVCPVHKPF KPIDGECWUGKVTGOKPFUWUVJCVETGCVKPICPFUWR RQTVKPI VJKTF URCEGU YJGTG UVWFGPVU EQPHTQPV EQORGVKPI FKUEQWTUGU ECP DG C EQPUVCPV EJCN NGPIGHQTVGCEJGTUōYJGTGVJG[OWUVOCMGQP VJGURQVFGEKUKQPUCDQWVYJCVCPFYJQVQXCNK FCVG CPF JQY VQ RWUJ UVWFGPVU VQ KPVGTTQICVG VJGKTDKCUGU 5mall group discussions and written NCP IWCIGYGTGKPVGTYQXGPCPFWUGFCUVJGVCTIGV QHKPUVTWEVKQPCPFCUCVQQNHQTYTKVKPIKPUVTWE VKQP 5WEJ UQEKCN CPF CECFGOKE NCPIWCIG WUG JGNRGFUVWFGPVUFGXGNQRPGYYC[UQHOCMKPI EQPPGEVKQPUVQVJGKTGZRGTKGPEGUIWKFKPIVJGKT WPFGTUVCPFKPI QH RTGXKQWU CPF PGY KPHQTOC VKQPCPFTGXKUKPIVJGKTVJKPMKPI9KVJKPVJGUG URCEGUMPQYNGFIGCPFNCPIWCIGYGTGPGIQVK CVGF QTICPK\GF CPF FKUVTKDWVGF OCMKPI KV CEEGUUKDNG VQ CNN OGODGTU QH VJG EQOOWPKV[ These third spaces provided Jenae with deeper understandings of her students’ lives and languages that allowed them to merge school networks with local networks (Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, & Turner, 1997). Students also played an important part in the creation of third space. For instance, I noticed that students created third spaces among themselves by sharing family stories


15

and negotiating conflicting ideals related to literature. Through these cocreations, the students’ voices were heard and authentic learning took place within the confines of the school curriculum. #U RCTVKEKRCVKQP KP VJG URCEGUKPETGCUGFUVWFGPVUŏKFGPVKVKGUCPFYTKV KPICDKNKVKGUUJKHVGFWhile I describe some of the ways that Jenae and her students created third spaces to build bridges, negotiate, and transform students’ knowledge about writing in the middle grades, it is important to note that this type of instruction requires concerted effort. From the themes provided, Jenae regularlyGZGTEKUGFCWVJQTKV[YKVJQWVDGKPICWVJQT KVCVKXG CPF IWKFGF UVWFGPVU UVTCVGIKECNN[ VJTQWIJ VJG YTKVKPI RTQEGUU 5JG EQPVKPWCNN[ provided scaffolded instruction that allowed her students to dialogue about language, culture, and discourse differences while offering a safe environment from which to contradict and challenge the standard curriculum. Scaffolded activities such as small and large group discussions encouraged the students to make links between their linguistic and cultural experiences and the curriculum. Jenae also provided space for these discussions to be carried out independently. Students were given the space to challenge societal discourse patterns without the fear of being reprimanded. While Jenae often felt uneasy about some of these discussions, she trusted the students and allowed them to reflect and negotiate ways of knowing and being that are too often not sanctioned by school. The rich discussions and use of hybrid language practices used both by Jenae and her students created a different kind of writing instruction for the middle grades, one that values students’ local knowledge while learning about, incorporating, and changing institutional knowledge (Dyson, 2001, 2003; Gutierrez, 2008; Moje et al., 2004). The findings suggest third space theories and academic language learning are integrally connected (Bakhtin, 1986; Vygotsky, 1978) and illustrate how middle grade teachers can cocreate third spaces in order to link local ways of knowing to the academic demands of

school. Furthermore, this study supports other research that suggests literacy instruction should be grounded in the knowledge and language use of students and that instructional practice be consciously local, situated, and contingent on students’ lives (Gutierrez, 2008; Levy, 2008; Moje et al., 2004). While there are a number of practitioner books and journals that focus on the teaching of writing in middle school, few describe what this looks like in a seventh grade classroom with EL. The analysis of Jenae’s use of third space and her students’ understanding of the writing process attempts to address this gap in the literature. This study is significant because it highlights the urgent need to support adolescent EL in academic settings and illustrates the complex ways in which one teacher can provide instructional mediation as students move through the landscape of school.

REFERENCES Anderson, J. (2004). Mechanically inclined: Building grammar, usage, and style into writer’s workshop. Portland, ME: Stenhouse. Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New understandings about writing, reading, and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Calkins, L. (1994). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Dyson, A. H. (2001). Writing and children’s symbolic repertoires: Development unhinged. S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 126–141). New York, NY: Guilford. Dyson, A. H. (2003). The brothers and sisters learn to write: Popular literacies in childhood and school cultures. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

16

Emerson, R., Fretz, R., I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Fitts, S. (2009). Exploring third space in a dual-language setting: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Latinos and Education, 8(2), 87-104. FQK Fitzgerald, J. (2006). Multilingual writing in preschool through 12th grade: The last 15 years. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 337-354). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Gebhard, M., Harman, R., & Seger, W. (2007). Reclaiming recess: Learning the language of persuasion. Language Arts, 84 (5), 419-430. Gee, J.P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis theory and method (2nd ed). New York, NY: Routledge. González, N., Moll, L. C. & Amanti, C. (2005). (Eds.), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms (pp. 119-130). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Graves, D. H. (2003). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Gutiérrez, K. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 148-164. Gutiérrez, K., Baquedano-López, P., & Tejeda, C. (2000). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(4), 286-303. Gutiérrez, K., Baquedano-López, P. & Turner, M. (1997). Putting language back into the language arts: When the radical middle meets the third space. Language Arts, 74 (5), 368-378. Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? The University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute. Policy report 20001. Adolescence, 40, 503-512. Hicks, D. (2002). Reading lives: Working-class children and literacy learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press Levy, R. (2008). ‘Third Spaces’ are interesting places: Applying ‘third space theory’ to nursery aged children’s constructions of themselves as readers. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 8(1), 43-66. doi: 10.1177/1468798407087161 Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London, UK: Sage.


Vol. 9, No. 1, 2014

Lowery, L. (1993). The giver. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin. Lindfors, J. W. (1999). Children's inquiry: Using language to make sense of the world. Language and literacy series. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. McCarthey, S., & Moje, E. (2002). Conversations: Identity matters. Reading Research Quarterly, 37 (2), 228-237. McGinnis, T. (2007). Khmer rap boys, X-Men, Asia’s fruits, and Dragonball Z: Creating multilingual and multimodal classroom contexts. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50(7), 570-579. doi: 10.1598. Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Moje, E. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reaching Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38-70. Moje, E., Ciechanowski, M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward Third Space in contenta area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knoweldge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly 39, 38-70. Moll, L. C., & González, N. (1994). Lessons from research with language-minority children. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26(4), 439-456. National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). NAEP data explorer. Retrieved from ǣȀȀ ǤǤȀǤ National Commission on Writing in America's Schools and Colleges. (2003). The neglected "r": The need for a writing revolution. New York, NY: College Board. Nia, I.T. (1999). Units of study in the writing workshop. Primary Voices K-6 8(1), 3-11. Prior, P. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp 5466). New York, NY: Guilford. Ray, K. W. (1999). Wondrous words: Writers and writing in the elementary classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Samway, K. D. (2006). When English language learners write: Connecting research to practice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Short, D., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring


17

language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners—A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Short, K., & Harste, J. (with Burke, C.). (1996). Creating classrooms for authors and inquirers (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Smith, F. (1988). Joining the literacy club: Further essays into education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Soja, E. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Turner, J. (2005). Orchestrating success for African American readers: The case of an effective third

grade teacher. Reading Research and Instruction 44, 27-48. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wong, S. D., Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. (2002).What teachers need to know about language. In C.T. Adger, C. E. Snow, & D. Christian (Eds.), What teachers need to know about language (pp. 7– 53). McHenry, IL: Delta Systems and Center for Applied Linguistics. Yoon, T. (2013). Exploring a literacy development in young Korean ELLs with online E-books. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 4(2), 253-259.

Copyright of Middle Grades Research Journal is the property of Information Age Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.