University of Cincinnati

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

Date:______

I, ______, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: in:

It is entitled:

This work and its defense approved by:

Chair: ______

“Getting it Right” and “Keeping it Real”:

Using Narrative Soundtracks

As a Transmediatory Activity in a Secondary School

A Dissertation submitted to the

Division of Graduate Studies and Research

Of the University of Cincinnati

In partial fulfillment of the

Requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education

in the Division of Teacher Education

Literacy Program

College of Education

2007

Angela Maria Miller

B. S. Xavier University, 1987

M. Ed. Xavier University, 1992

Committee: Dr. Robert Burroughs (chair) Dr. Keith Barton Dr. Holly Johnson Dr. Eric Paulson

ABSTRACT

There are many learners who find it difficult to navigate in strictly verbocentric classrooms where reading and writing are the central, and sometimes only, means by

which students can explore and construct meaning, as well as express their understanding

of literary texts. This qualitative study focused on two English classrooms in a secondary

school where students were encouraged to utilize alternative response activities in order

to make connections to literary texts. One class consisted of advanced placement eleventh

grade students; the other class included eleventh and twelfth grade students who had been

identified as “struggling” readers, based on their inability to pass the State Graduation

Test. The study’s purpose was to establish and compare the types of connections the two

classes of secondary students made with literary texts when they were asked to create a

musical soundtrack and accompanying narrative for an assigned literary text. It also

investigated how other alternative reader response activities (e.g., drawing visual texts,

creating dramatizations) were received by the students as part of the ongoing curricular

conversations in the classrooms.

The data were collected, organized, and analyzed using a case study approach to

qualitative research. The data included a teacher interview, individual student and focus

group interviews, observational field notes, and student artifacts. The main objective of

the analyses was to assemble comprehensive, organized, and thorough accounts of each

class. Data from the interviews and observational field notes were initially analyzed using

analytic induction (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The data gathered

from the students’ musical response activities were analyzed based on categories that

emerged through open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) during a pilot study. All data

were later analyzed deductively in order to consider and confirm the patterns and themes

that resulted from the first two phases of data analysis.

Findings suggested there were significant differences between the advanced placement class and the State Graduation Test recovery class. First, the curricular organization of the two classes differed. While the advanced placement class had five consistent classroom episodes, these were flexible and included a variety of alternative response activities. The State Graduation Test recovery class, however, had only four classroom episodes that were more rigid in both content and timing, allowing only limited opportunities for the implementation of response activities. As a result of the differences in the planned and enacted curriculum for both classes, the students’ understandings of the received curriculum, including the response activity, were also dissimilar. The advanced placement students were primarily interested in creating a soundtrack product that reflected a literary analysis of the text consistent with the types of curricular conversations that occurred in the classroom. The State Graduation Test recovery students, however, were more concerned with the collaborative process, resulting in soundtracks that included more personal responses and aesthetic commentary

on both the text and the music.

[blank page]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to begin by thanking the chair of my committee, Dr. Robert Burroughs. Bob has provided constant support as not only my academic advisor and mentor, but also as a sounding board and friend. Without our many discussions, both the scheduled office visits and the impromptu meetings, this project would have been impossible.

I would also like to thank the members of my committee: Dr. Keith Barton, Dr. Holly Johnson, and Dr. Eric Paulson. Their expert advice on various aspects of my dissertation study has provided me with a forum for thinking more critically and carefully. They have been very generous with their time and resources, both individually and collectively.

I want to recognize my fellow doctoral students: Sonya Armstrong, Delane Bender-Slack, and Mary Pat Raupach. Due in great part to the academic collaboration and enduring friendship we have built, these three years of doctoral study were a time of great personal and professional growth. I will miss our “working lunches” and our dissertation-writing group. I am honored to have had the opportunity to know these incredible, intelligent women.

I also wish to acknowledge the entire faculty and staff in the Education Department at the College of Mount Saint Joseph for their patience and guidance during my three years of doctoral study. I am most appreciative of the kindness, support, and understanding extended over the years. I thank my friend, Dr. John DeFoor, for his willingness to read multiple drafts of my work and discuss it ad nauseum.

I am grateful in a most powerful way for my parents, Larry and Marie Ashford, and my sister, Andrea Ashford, who were steady sources of encouragement. Their unwavering faith in my ability to complete my doctoral studies humbles me. Though I dare to reach for the stars, their love grounds me always.

Last, and most importantly, I want to thank my husband, Tim. His willingness to sustain, encourage, and uplift me throughout this process knew no bounds. I also wish to acknowledge in a most significant way my bright and beautiful children—Anamarie, Alex, and Alivia. They are the center of my world, the joy of my heart, and the music in my life. I am blessed each and every day by their presence in my life. I thank them for providing me with the most important role of my life—being their mom, now and always.

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1………………………………………………………………………………. 74

Table 3.2………………………………………………………………………………. 82

Table 5.1………………………………………………………………………………142

Table 5.2………………………………………………………………………………161

Table 5.3………………………………………………………………………………174

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1 …………………………………………………………………………… 90

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………… 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………… 5

LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………………………. 6

LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………… 7

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………… 12

Shifting Definitions of Literacy………………………………………………… 14

Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………………. 19 Research Questions………………………………………………...... 20 Defining the Terms……………………………………………………... 21

Shifting Modes of Literacy Instruction…………………………………………. 25

Significance of the Study……………………………………………………….. 28

Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………………. 29 Reader Response Theory……………………………………………….. 29 Alternative Reader Response Activities…………………………...... 31 Considering Curricula……………………………………...... 33 Choosing Activities………………………………………...... 34

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE………………………………………………….. 37

Reader Response Research……………………………………………………... 37 Reader Response Instruction…………………………………………….40 Transmediation…………………………………………………………. 42 Transmediation in Alternative Reader Response Research…………….. 43 Studies that focus on the process of transmediation……………. 44 Studies that focus on the products of transmediation…………... 51

Summary and Discussion………………………………………………………. 58

III. METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………………. 61

Design of the Study………………………………………………………………62

Gaining Access…………………………………………………………………. 62

Context of the Study……………………………………………………………. 65 The District……………………………………………………………... 65 The School……………………………………………………………… 66

Methodology……………………………………………………………………. 66 Pilot Study………………………………………………………………. 67 Data Sources……………………………………………………………. 69 Observations……………………………………………………. 69 Interviews………………………………………………………. 71 Artifacts………………………………………………………… 73

Data Management and Analysis…………………………………………...... 75 Data Management………………………………………………………. 75 Data Analysis: Unique Case Orientation……………………………….. 76 Content Analysis………………………………………………... 77 Creating Categories…………………………………………….. 78 Confirming Patterns……………………………………………. 79 Curriculum Theory in Data Analysis……………………………...... 80

Study Timeline…………………………………………………………………. 81

Trustworthiness………………………………………………………………… 82 Credibility………………………………………………………………. 83 Transferability…………………………………………………………... 84 Dependability…………………………………………………………… 84 Confirmability…………………………………………………………... 85

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………… 86

IV. THE CURRICULAR CONTEXTS…………………………………………………87

Introduction………………………………………………………………………87

The School Structure……………………………………………………………. 87

The Classroom Context…………………………………………………………. 88 Classroom Description………………………………………………….. 89

Holding a Curricular Conversation…………………………………………….. 91 Planned Curriculum: Honors Class.…………………………………….. 91 Received Curriculum: Honors Class.…………………………………… 96 Classroom Enactment: Honors Class………………………………….. 101 Classroom Enactment: An Illustrative Example……………...... 104

Planned Curriculum: SGT Recovery Class……………………………. 116 Received Curriculum: SGT Recovery Class…………………………... 121 Classroom Enactment: SGT Recovery Class………………………….. 125 Classroom Enactment: An Illustrative Example………………………. 127

Summary and Discussion……………………………………………………….134

V. THE CASE STUDIES………………………………………………………………135

Honors Students: “Getting it Right”……………………………………………135 The Text…………………………………………………………...... 135 Summary of The Catcher in the Rye……………………………135 The Catcher in the Rye Unit…………………………………….137 The Music………………………………………………………………141 Developing Soundtracks………………………………………..141 Utilizing music………………………………………………….147 The Curricular Conversation……………………………………………153 Perceptions of assessment………………………………………153

“Struggling” Students: “Keeping it Real”………………………………………155 The Text………………………………………………………………...155 Summary of Killing Mr. Griffin………………………………..155 Killing Mr. Griffin Unit………………………………………...157 The Music………………………………………………………………160 Developing Soundtracks………………………………………..160 Utilizing music………………………………………………….166 The Curricular Conversation……………………………………………170 Perceptions of authenticity……………...... 170

Cross Case Comparison………………………………………………………173

VI. FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS……………………………………………….178

Discussion of Issues……………………………………………………………178 Soundtrack Issues………………………………………………………178

Curricular Issues……………………………………………………….192

Study Limitations………………………………………………………………198

Study Implications……………………………………………………………..199 Research Implications……………………………………………….....199 Pedagogical Implications………………………………………………201

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………204

APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………214

Chapter One

Introduction

Mrs. Stanford said, “Write your essay about your favorite food. Describe it and tell why you like it. Try to convince your audience why they should try it themselves. I want to know how it looks, smells, tastes…what’s so great about it? Then plan on reading that essay about favorite foods in front of the class like a speech.”

Some students in the class rolled their eyes and groaned.

Mrs. Stanford smiled, began handing out small pieces of paper, and continued talking, “I want you to practice giving your speech. Make eye contact with your audience. Don’t wanna spend most of your time looking at your note cards, right? Don’t give away that you’re stuck by facial expressions or an exasperated sigh. Dress up on the scheduled day of your speech. Just so you are prepared, you are going the next day you come back if you’re sick on the scheduled day.”

Students looked at the papers and began to grow enthusiastic. Excited whispers of, “I know this one,” “This is funny!” “I remember this from when I was little,” “Let me switch mine with you,” were heard as students read their own papers and those of others.

Suddenly Tara shouted out, “You’re gonna take these poems and ruin them by making us do grammar on them or something, right?”

Mrs. Stanford smiled again and said, “No, I am going to give you eight minutes to partner up and practice reading these Shel Silverstein poems. Try to memorize enough so that you can make consistent eye contact. Show that you are comfortable with the piece. Only use the poem paper as something to refer to and say things with a little flair. Pause to show the humor of the piece. Enunciate. Take your time.”

Jessica said, “You’re making this difficult. I think I’m a pretty good public speaker, but this makes it feel claustrophobic and forced.”

Tara turned to Jessica and said, “See, I told ya she was gonna ruin them.”

As can be seen in the exchange above, what was most enjoyable and essential

about reading and writing, speaking and listening varied from person to person in this

classroom. The educator in this situation had one idea of what it meant to display a

specific literacy proficiency, the skill of public speaking. The students in this scenario,

however, saw the proposed activity as simply a demonstration, something contrived and

“forced.” The students did not share the teacher’s vision of this public speaking activity as an opportunity to utilize literate behaviors in a purposeful or meaningful manner. What is equally revealing is that the texts chosen by the teacher were apparently familiar to the students. The students began to show a palatable eagerness at the prospect of reading and sharing these poems with one another until their enthusiasm was eventually tempered by one student’s concern that the literacy experience would be “ruined” when the texts became part of the teacher’s plan in the school context.

The scenario illustrated above was taken from the research reported here, a study that looked at two classroom environments in a secondary school. It explored the ways in which the pedagogical practices that were valued and utilized in those classrooms influenced the ways in which students made connections with texts and the manner in which students entered the curricular conversations. This research study looked at the systems of communication in the classrooms in order to comprehend how students perceived the larger conversational domains, as well as understand the roles, attitudes, and levels of interest in literacy discourse that students adopted within that framework.

This chapter begins by looking at what is meant by literacy, including a brief historical look at the evolving definitions of the word itself and ending with a vision of the literacy skills that are projected requirements for the 21st century. I then position my research in light of this, including the study’s purpose and significance. I end the chapter with a look at the changing approaches in literacy instruction, especially those pedagogical practices that are rooted in the theoretical framework of this study, reader response theory.

Shifting Definitions of Literacy

Over the course of the last few centuries, the definition of literacy has undergone

major changes in the United States (Kinzer, 2003). Some educational researchers believe

that modifications in the definition of literacy often occurred as a result of shifting

societal demands and technological advances. One such researcher is Miles Myers (1996) who explains four shifts in the understanding of what constitutes literacy in the United

States. In the latter part of the 17th century, for example, literacy was predominately an

oral tradition. Such orality was appropriate for the stable agricultural society that existed

at the time. A vast majority of people lived out their entire lives in the same communities,

allowing for information to be shared and then stored in a type of collective memory.

Stories, current events, and even contractual agreements could be presented orally and

sealed with a simple handshake.

Around 1776, however, as the colonies united and people became more transient

within the burgeoning nation, there was a change in an understanding of what constituted

literacy (Myers, 1996). The movement of residents from one community to another

created a need for written records such as marriage licenses, wills, and land contracts.

The prevailing sense of literacy as an oral tradition grew to include writing one’s formal

name as a valuable and necessary literacy skill. In order to be truly “literate,” one must be

able to do more than mark a printed page—signing one’s name was required.

Between 1776 and 1864, a second shift occurred when literacy expanded to

include not only “signature” literacy, but also “recitation” (Myers, 1996). Fueled by

improved developments in transportation and commerce, people began leaving their

farms to work in small industries and factories (Perlmann & Shirley, 1991). Improved

conditions for schooling, due in part to increased population density that allowed

communities to financially support community schools, as well as a growing interest in

an “educated citizenry” (Perlmann & Shirley, 1991, p.53) after the acquisition of national

independence, made literacy appear more useful and important. Thus, the notion of what

constituted literacy broadened to include the ability to copy written works and engage in

oral language performances.

The third shift in the definition of literacy occurred later in the 19th century and

continued until approximately 1916 (Myers, 1996). As the United States grew into an

industrialized nation, the need for workers to effectively communicate also increased.

Schools responded to this need by training students in proficient reading and writing

performance. The ability to decode unfamiliar texts became paramount so that students,

as potential future factory workers, would be capable of understanding texts such as

written directions and work orders. This change, known as “decoding/analytic” literacy,

has dominated societal beliefs about literacy since that time. As a result, literacy has

continued to be viewed as an entity, something one possesses or does not; to be “literate,”

in this most narrow and strictest sense, means that one is able to read accurately and write

effectively (Harste, 2003).

Myers (1996) argued that another definition of literacy is currently developing in the United States, creating a fourth shift. He called this new literacy “translation/critical literacy.” In this expanded classification of what it means to be literate, reading includes more than an ability to decode text and extract information from that text. Reading, as it is coming to be understood, implies the ability to interpret many types of texts, as well as produce a variety of translations from these texts in multiple sign systems. Precipitated at

least in part by the electronic world of computers, being literate now involves more than

the manipulation of alphabetic characters on paper in classroom or occupational settings

(Kinzer, 2003).

As can be seen from the brief history of literacy explained above, what counts as

literacy can vary—historically, geographically, institutionally, and culturally. As the

current definition of literacy becomes more and more inclusive, the demand for

sophisticated reading and writing skills, strategies, and abilities increases. Students in the

21st century are learning and utilizing keyboarding skills, web layout and designs, still images, audio input, and various forms of text as they navigate a world filled with many types of materials and varieties of content. In order for students to have employment opportunities in a “day of closing doors,” students will need “a great range of habits of mind and a great number of complex skills” (Greene, 1995, p. 13). Thus, literacy in a variety of media will be necessary for young people who are entering current workplaces.

Literacy, therefore, cannot be considered as a fixed set of unchanging and

universal skills or processes (Comber & Cormack, 1997). What is most essential about

learning to read and write, then, is not the ability to complete a specific reading task on

reading worksheets, demonstrate a particular writing skill in isolation in a contrived

writing assignment, or perform a speech act on demand in a classroom. It is more important that people are able to utilize these literate behaviors in purposeful, meaningful, and enjoyable activities within the context of one’s lived existence both in and out of school. Willinsky (1990) states that “literacy is better understood not as an isolated skill, as something one can do on demand, but as a social process in the daily landscape” (p. 6) of one’s lived experience in the world.

As members of a technologically advanced society, students will be required to

develop and utilize an assortment of literacy skills, including visual texts in the form of

electronic texts and games, virtual realities like chat rooms and distance learning

classrooms, musical compositions and lyric texts, as well as visual art and graphic

designs. The electronic world, along with its academic uses in school and practical

applications outside of the classroom, places new demands on students as they move

toward literacy and independent learning. The demand for sophisticated forms of literate

behavior continues to rise, necessitating the development of what Street (1995) calls

“multiple literacies”—an array of ways in which humans can construct meaning.

Language, in its spoken and written forms, is not the only available way to represent meaning; humans can utilize art, music, mathematics, and even movement to construct and express meaning in their lives. In order for students to learn, develop, and exercise

these multiple literacies, educators must be committed to the development of curricula

that value, support, and encourage them.

Traditionally, however, educators have focused little time, attention, or resources

on the meaning-making aspects of reading. Instead, teachers have provided students with

training primarily in the mechanics of reading—letter recognition, sound-symbol

correspondence and decoding, later moving into word recognition and word analysis

(Robinson, 2005). The instruction of children in the fundamental skills and technical strategies necessary for successful reading has included the materials necessary for successful reading—workbooks to practice skills, leveled beginning readers or grade- appropriate basal texts, and modeling of effective reading strategies. According to the

“decoding/analytic” definition of literacy that has dominated since the early 1900s, such

pedagogy, rooted in word-oriented instruction such as phonics or sight word approaches,

would create capable readers who are able to decode and render an acceptable version of

the text. In other words, the students would be considered “literate.”

Yet, if Myers’ (1996) broader definition of literacy as a “translation/critical” process is applied, the ability to simply decipher printed words and verbalize them would

hardly be adequate. When looking at recent statistics regarding literacy in the United

States, this broader definition of literacy must be kept in mind. For example, according to

the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS), a study of 14, 000 adults revealed that as

many as 44 million adults cannot read well enough to interpret a food can label (National

Institute for Literacy, 2002 as cited in Fisher & Frey, 2004). This statistic implies that, while the adults may be able to accurately decode and verbalize the words, they may, nevertheless, remain unable to think critically about the significance of such information for nutritional, dietary, or even economic value. The ability to simply “read” is insufficient in such circumstances; a person must be able to employ analytical literacy behaviors in meaningful ways within the context of real life situations.

In light of the increasing demands placed on the literacy behaviors of people in

the 21st century, it is disturbing to note that students’ average reading proficiencies have

remained virtually unchanged over the past 30 years (National Assessment of

Educational Progress, 2000 as cited in Galda & Graves, 2007). This is to say that, in the

year 2000, students in the United States read very much like the United States students in

1971. Such a statistic is alarming when one considers the fact that, while societal and occupational demands for increased and sophisticated literacy continue to climb,

American students’ overall reading proficiency remains almost the same. In fact, the

International Reading Association (IRA) and the National Council of Teachers of English

(NCTE) have charged that, in order to encourage the interpretive and reflective literacy

behavior necessary for the future success of their students, it is the responsibility of

teachers to “challenge students to analyze critically the texts they view” (IRA & NCTE,

1996, p. 6).

These statistics suggest that there is more work to be done in the area of literacy

development. They imply that despite good intentions, appropriate methods, and

adequate materials, something has been overlooked. Transmission-oriented instruction,

which is rooted in a “banking” model (Freire, 1970) of knowledge and learning and has

dominated pedagogy since the early 1900s, is not encouraging the literate behaviors that students will need in the 21st century due to its exclusive emphasis on teaching skills,

processes, and strategies. As Maxine Greene (1995) suggested,

Success can only be guaranteed for those able to master a whole range of novel

and unfamiliar skills. There can be…no turning back to the days when elementary

verbal literacy alone was a basic goal in itself, anymore than there can be a return

to the fabricated world of the “Dick and Jane” basal reader (p. 18).

Thus, it is the responsibility of educators to plan for and instruct students in a wide and

inclusive range of meaningful activities, designed to support the multiple literacy development of children in a variety of contexts.

Purpose of the Study

The study described here sought to explore one of the multiple literacies

enumerated by Street (1995), and this study is rooted in reader response theory. Reader

response theory is currently one of the three prominent theoretical paradigms identified

by Franzak (2006) as influencing the pedagogical approaches utilized in the English

language arts. Specifically, this study investigated the ways in which students utilized

musical texts and musical compositions as a means of facilitating their understanding of

literary texts in the classroom. Students in this study were given an opportunity to explore

the literary text by creating a novel soundtrack in which they were allowed to use a variety of musical compositions and texts.

The study intended to determine types of connections students made with the

literary text and the kinds of thinking undertaken by the students when they were

encouraged to move beyond verbocentric projects in order to explore and explicate their

thinking. It sought to investigate how particular kinds of activities were utilized by

secondary students during the meaning-making process. In addition to focusing on the

literary terms or the structure of the text, the students in this study were encouraged to

make personal and meaningful connections with the literary work as they negotiated

meaning. Another purpose of this research was to investigate how alternative reader

response activities (e.g., drawing visual texts, creating dramatizations) were received by

students as part of the ongoing curricular conversations in the classroom.

Research Questions

This study was guided by the following questions:

1. What happens when students are encouraged to create musical soundtracks;

how are musical compositions and musical texts utilized during the meaning-

making process of creating musical soundtracks?

2. What are the students’ perceptions regarding the utility of alternative response

activities in assisting them in the negotiation of meaning of literary texts?

3. How do students perceive these activities as part of the larger, ongoing

curricular conversation designed and implemented by the secondary English

teachers regarding response to literature?

Defining the Terms

Literacy. Given the varied and changing definitions of literacy, it is necessary to

clarify what was meant by literacy in this study. Literacy was defined, according to

Cowan and Albers (2006), as “the ease with which learners can create or interpret others’

semiotic systems” (p. 125). Rather than being considered an entity, a skill that one either does or does not possess, literacy in this study was conceived as a social meaning-making process by which humans are able to interpret many types of texts, as well as produce a variety of translations from these texts in multiple sign systems. From this socio-cultural perspective, what counts as a literacy practice may vary according to purpose, time, place, culture, and experience (Comber & Cormack, 1997). Therefore, literacy events and practices must be viewed and analyzed within a contextual framework, rather than in isolation, separated from the environments that give them meaning. In this broader definition of what it means to be literate, “reading” involves more than an ability to decode text and extract information from that text. It is best understood not as an ability that can be best exhibited on demand in predetermined tasks, but as a means to another end—a process with a greater purpose.

Struggling. While the term struggling has been a disputed term when it precedes

the word student, Alvermann (2000) has suggested that because the expression may mean

different things to a variety of people, it may be as apt a term as any to describe students

(adolescents, in particular) who appear to exert great effort with regard to reading.

Struggling students include not only those with clinically diagnosed reading disabilities,

but includes second language learners and “at-risk” youth. What is more, it has come to also describe students who are “unmotivated, disenchanted, or generally unsuccessful in

school literacy tasks” (p. 2). The emphasis in this definition, of course, is on school

literacy tasks. The significance of this is the implication that, while some of these

struggling students may grapple with the reading, writing, and speaking activities valued

and utilized in the classroom, they may, in fact, exhibit a tremendous capacity for literate

behavior in out-of-school contexts. Keeping in mind that physical appearances, as well as

observations of students’ in-school written and spoken language skills (Alvermann,

2001), are often used to assign labels such as good, average, and poor readers, I use the term struggling loosely and without prejudice against the students to whom the label has been affixed.

Sign systems. Rooted in the theory of social semiotics, sign systems (or symbols)

are those ways in which humans both mediate meaning for themselves, and the ways in

which humans express that meaning or understanding to another person (Halliday, 1975).

Humans use the sign systems that are socially located and accepted within the signmaker’s experience and environment. These signs—including art, music, drama,

mathematics, and forms of language—constitute the manner and means, as well as the

tools and techniques for communication, interpretation, and representation of meaning.

Humans can move within one sign system or can represent content across sign systems.

The process by which learners translate across symbolic systems in order to create or mediate meaning is known as “transmediation” (Suhor, 1984). Transmediation may include such activities as “making a raft like the one described in Huckleberry Finn;

writing a paraphrase of a poem read in class; making a slide show to illustrate a short

story” (p. 250).

Reader response activities. Reader response activities can best be described as the

written or spoken products, projects, or discussions that employ “a pattern of thinking

and talking [about a literary work] that begins with the reader’s primary response” to the

text (Probst, 1981, p. 44). Rooted in Louise Rosenblatt’s (1938) literary criticisms and

pedagogical philosophies, reader response theory places an emphasis on the importance

of a reader’s reservoir of prior knowledge and past personal experiences in interpreting

text. The text, rather than being conceived as an independent entity, becomes part of a

transaction involving both the text and the reader. This transaction is shaped by the

reader during the literacy event under the direction of the printed words of the text.

Rosenblatt’s work and writing stresses the integral and ongoing relationship between the

text and the students’ world. Such a transaction between reader and text includes all of

the social, cultural, and psychological experiences of the reader, as well as those

incorporated into the reading event itself.

Alternative (reader) response activities, however, do not utilize language as the

primary sign system, either in oral or written form. Alternative response activities can

best be defined as the products and projects that initially or primarily utilize other sign

systems, rather than forms of verbal or written language. These may include art, music,

pantomime, and drama, as well as movement and dance.

Efferent and aesthetic stances. Rosenblatt (1978) differentiated between two stances that a reader may take when engaging in a reading transaction. One stance, called

an aesthetic stance, is an approach to reading in which the reader’s attention is directed

toward the task of experiencing the text, or “living through” the textual world of a literary

piece. This stance is often associated closely with fiction texts. The second stance, called

an efferent stance, is an approach in which the reader attempts to carry away specific

information from the text, and is often connected to nonfiction or informational texts.

This is not to say, however, that readers cannot have an aesthetic reading of a nonfiction

text or an efferent reading of a fiction text. For example, a poem, despite its figurative

language and potential for being interpreted in many ways, may be read from an efferent

stance by students who believe there is but one correct meaning. Students who feel that

they must extract an appropriate response, the one anticipated by the teacher, will read for

the purpose of finding that answer and supporting it with information from the poem. On

the other hand, nonfiction texts such as biographies or autobiographies might be read not

for the informational value, but for a more aesthetic purpose—entering that world and

experiencing the time, place, and events of the subject’s lifetime.

Curriculum. Curriculum is often defined as a course of study or a program of

learning which usually leads to a certificate or degree. This definition, however, does not

highlight the decision-making power of the educator in the planning and implementation

of this course of study. Curriculum, as it will be used here, is the sense of purpose and

direction that is established by teachers around which all literary pieces, classroom

discussions, and response activities are centered (Applebee, 1994b, 2002).

Such a curriculum exists at three levels: the planned, the enacted, and the

received. The planned curriculum includes all of the materials and texts chosen, along with the methods and activities selected by the teacher that are intended for classroom teaching (Applebee, 1996). The planned curriculum is that which is most familiar to

educators, and includes the standards, lesson planning, and intended sequencing of skills

and materials. The enacted curriculum is the planned curriculum as it is implemented—

the utilization of materials, texts, methods, and activities in the classroom as it occurs and

unfolds (Applebee, 1996). Because teachers may capitalize on teachable moments or find

that their plans for the day may not work, the planned curriculum may not be an infallible

predictor of what is actually enacted. Lastly, the received curriculum centers on the

students’ perception and understanding of the enacted curriculum. What the student

actually perceives as occurring in the classroom may or may not be consistent with either

the planned or enacted curricula.

Curricula as it is used in this study also includes Arthur Applebee’s (1996)

concept of “knowledge-in-action.” This term is used to describe those curricular

conversations that encourage students to enter into current, shifting, and ongoing

discussions within the living traditions of disciplinary discourse. In other words, it is both

the knowing and doing of a discipline, and stands in direct opposition to those classroom discourses that focus only on learning about something. Applebee calls this learning about something “knowledge-out-of-context” because it represents information that is presented in a vacuum, of sorts, devoid of those contexts that give the information meaning and value.

Shifting Modes of Literacy Instruction

Reading, from a traditional decoding perspective, viewed the reader as “under the

control of the text” (Smith, 1988, p. 2). The reader was expected to methodically and

mechanically identify every letter placed in front of the eyes; accuracy and care during

reading were critical so that the printed phonograms and words, as well as the

corresponding oral pronunciations, were correct. Such activity required individual student readiness and preparation so that students were capable of learning the

hierarchical set of sub-skills necessary to engage in “reading.” In this highly

structuralized decoding process, comprehension was not the highest priority. The

meaning of the text was believed to be embedded in the printed words on the page, and

the student was responsible for unlocking that meaning of the literary text after he had

decoded the graphics on the page.

Smith (1988), however, stated that reading is not made more comprehensible

simply because it has been converted, during the technical process of decoding, from

written print to the spoken word. For example, the ability of an adult to read (technically)

and pronounce the ingredients and information on the label of a food container does not

mean that the person has an understanding of its import. In order to comprehend and

interpret both the meaning and the value of the information, a critical analysis based on the reader’s prior knowledge (Bruner, 1973) and schematic structure (Pichert &

Anderson, 1977) is necessary.

Bruner (1973) argued that learning is an active process in which learners construct

new ideas and concepts based upon their past experience and current understanding.

Learners select pertinent information, construct hypotheses, make decisions, and

ultimately alter their conceptual understanding, relying on a cognitive structure to do so.

Prior knowledge is an integral aspect of schema theory, developed by Pitchert and

Anderson (1977). Schema theory views all knowledge as an elaborate network of abstract

mental structures or categorical rules that are used to interpret the world. New

information is processed and interpreted through these structures and rules (schemata).

Information that does not fit into these schemata may be misunderstood or not comprehended at all. Additionally, the schematic construct itself can be modified, based on the introduction of new information and experiences. The importance, then, of students’ background knowledge and personal past experience in literacy development

cannot be overlooked in literacy instruction.

When teachers focus exclusively and intensely on the mechanics of reading rather

than approaching reading instruction from a meaning-seeking perspective that takes into

account students’ prior knowledge and schemata and a more important purpose than a

simple display of skills, they obscure the real objectives for which reading should be

taught. Willinsky (1990) used a bike-riding analogy to draw a clearer distinction between

“literacy” as a skill or competence that one either has or does not, and “literacy” as a

greater good, a means for making sense of one’s world:

…[T]he point is not to develop the ability to ride, which leads to sessions of

practicing and demonstrating the skill….[I]f bikes are worth riding then the

learning should begin with the intent of taking you places, if only to the end of the

block on that first shaky run. What is important about riding are the places to

which you ride and the pleasures gained along the way. In the process of this

riding with a purpose, the skill naturally improves (p. 8).

Literacy researchers continue to confirm the efficacy of this stance. In the foreword of You GOTTA BE the Book (Wilhelm, 1997), Michael W. Smith stated that the author developed an idea that was both insightful and simple: “students who hate to read can’t see what they are reading” (p. xii). What is critical, then, for students to become accomplished readers is for teachers to emphasize the students’ experiences with text, to

encourage active meaning-making, and support critical thinking on the part of the reader.

By utilizing such instructional strategies, the focus of literacy development moves from a

simple extraction of information in order to arrive at a predetermined and “correct”

interpretation of text to the production of various translations and representations in an array of sign systems. These semiotic representations may include anything from visual depictions to musical compositions.

Significance of the Study

Unfortunately, many learning environments neither value nor encourage the use

of additional or alternative systems of representation. As a result, students who are less

capable of expressing themselves in verbal or written form are at a distinct disadvantage

in classrooms that are rigidly verbocentric. Readers themselves, as well as the “reading”

of the text and all subsequent response activities, are always socially situated (Gallas &

Smagorinsky, 2002). Thus, the types of pedagogical practices that are valued in the

classroom will envelop and either encourage (or discourage) the various connections that

students make with the text. For that reason, an understanding of alternative reader

response activities involving music and their potential to provide students with varying

means and methods of reading the word and the world is important. Recognizing the

value of alternative response activities may assist teachers in reaching students who are

currently perceived as incapable, unsuccessful, or reluctant learners. In turn, the use of

such reader response activities may provide students with opportunities to access their

own reservoir of prior knowledge and past experiences in order to make personal

connections and extend their comprehension of a literary text.

Research that looks at the learning context and the systems of communication in a

classroom is important because it provides a framework for comprehending how students

perceive the larger conversational domains, as well as understanding the roles, attitudes,

and levels of interest that students adopt within that discursive framework. Additionally,

research that focuses on the learning context provides insights into the ways in which both traditional and alternative reader response activities are valued, supported, and encouraged as part of that larger and ongoing academic conversation in the classroom and, as a result, are utilized by students as they explore their understanding of literary texts.

Theoretical Framework

This study is framed by reader response theory, specifically the concept of alternative response. Alternative reader response theory expands the boundaries of traditional response by including activities that utilize a wider range of human intelligence and a variety of sign systems. The following section explores reader response, including its impact on curricular decision-making and the roles of students

within that curriculum.

Reader Response Theory

Reader response theory has a long history, dating back almost eight decades to I.

A. Richards’ (1929) comprehensive case study of university students’ written responses

to poems. Richards’ research focused on isolating factors that appeared to impede a

reader’s “correct” understanding of a literary text. Such work placed emphasis on the importance of the written content itself, much as the grapho-phonetic method of teaching reading focused on decoding the written word. The text, as an independent, stable, and

distinct entity, was viewed as having a message or meaning that the author of that text

intended the reader to comprehend, an exact or acceptable understanding at which the

reader was expected to arrive. The response given by the reader, then, was judged by the

“accuracy” of the reading, an explanation of which demonstrated how capable the reader

was of unlocking the author’s projected meaning through a series of deliberate decoding

and comprehension processes.

Louise Rosenblatt’s (1938) literary criticisms and pedagogical philosophies,

however, shifted the spotlight of literary analysis from the text to the reader and the

reading process itself. Rosenblatt focused on the importance of the reader—his prior

knowledge and past experiences as a means to interpret text. The text, rather than being

conceived as an independent entity, shaped the experience of the reader as he engaged in a reading experience. The significance of reader response activity lies in the fact that it

starts with students’ responses to the text. In focusing on students’ primary reactions, the

students are given an opportunity to explore their feelings and thoughts about the piece

before moving into a closer textual analysis of the work. Probst (1981) suggested that

reader response teaching is “predicated on the notion that readers are first interested in

the work as it touches them” (p. 44); the discussion of personal responses, when guided

by a knowledgeable and skilled teacher, can result both logically and naturally into a

meaningful, self-directed literary analysis, where students are encouraged to answer their

own questions, explore their own thinking, consider the opposing views of their peers,

and reconcile the differences raised in the classroom.

Rosenblatt (1978) defined text as the “printed signs in their capacity to serve as

symbols” (p. 24). Readers interpret the “signs” of a literary text (which is, in essence, the

graphic representation of words on a page) in order to make meaning of the written piece.

Traditionally, students have been expected to express their understanding of those signs

serving in a symbolic capacity either verbally or in a piece of writing that demonstrates

comprehension. This is because language, in its written and spoken form, is a privileged

system of communication in schools. Students are expected to read texts, listen to

lectures, write papers, and explicate their understanding of content knowledge verbally in

the classroom. As learners progress through the elementary grades and into junior high and secondary school, increasing amounts of reading, writing, and verbal expression are

required and expected by educators.

Some students, however, find it difficult to respond to texts in this way. Students

who struggle with traditional writing assignments or verbal explication may be unable or

unwilling to engage fully in the reading process (Smagorinsky & O’Donnell-Allen,

1998a) or in the curricular conversations of the classroom (Applebee, 1996).

Additionally, these students may be perceived by their teachers as unsuccessful or

unproductive learners (Gallas & Smagorinksy, 2002) or may become completely

disillusioned with or disconnected from the educational process (Applebee, 1996).

Alternative Reader Response Activities

Students, by virtue of their apprenticeship into conventional English classrooms

over the course of many years in the educational system, adopt a certain understanding of what it means to read, write, and express comprehension of a literary text in a traditional way. The language communication systems utilized in schools and subsequently appropriated by the students represent more than a simple structure of signs. A

“discourse” of written and spoken language that focuses solely on grammatical, skillful,

and mechanical accuracy is only part of this structure. There is also a “Discourse” (with a capital D) (Gee, 1996). This “Discourse” is a “sort of identity kit which comes complete with the appropriate costume and instruction on how to act, talk, and often write, so as to take on a particular social role others will recognize” (p. 127).

The “identity” one adopts as a result of discourse may be of one’s own choosing.

For example, a woman may utilize a type of maternal discourse with her small child, using age-appropriate vocabulary, shortened sentences, and perhaps even terms of endearment, while keeping physical proximity to the child or holding the child’s hand.

This same woman may later adopt a more occupational discourse, speaking articulately and professionally to a room full of colleagues while maintaining a sense of physical distance and ensuring her personal space separate from the other adults in the room. The discourse is adopted for the purpose of situating oneself in a specific role, and is indicative of an identity that is acceptable and recognizable to both the individual and society as a whole.

On the other hand, not all identities rooted in discourse are a result of one’s choosing. Alvermann (2001) suggested that, when considering the position of students in the literacy classroom, identities assumed by readers are often ones that have been chosen for them. Based on observations of students’ written and spoken language skills, as well as appearances related to clothing, hair, posture, and attitude, both teachers and other students assign labels such as good readers, average readers, and poor readers. These labels, of course, are more than just brands or markers; attached to these labels are far- reaching cultural and social implications, including personal significance related to the child’s self-concept and self-esteem. Thus, the “reading” of the text and all subsequent

response activities and discussions related to it are always socially situated and cannot be separated from the contexts in which they occur (Gallas & Smagorinsky, 2002; Gee,

1996).

Considering curricula. It is this more specific, “social” context that is significant in the planning, implementation, and eventual reception of English classroom activities.

Educators who plan for and promote movement beyond the verbocentric confines of customary English curricula give students permission to move into more personalized expressions of understanding and comprehension. These teachers encourage the belief that “what is important is not language, and surely not grammar, but saying (writing)- doing-being-valuing-believing combinations” (Gee, 1996, p.127). By encouraging this idea of the importance of “knowing and doing” combinations, teachers ensure that their classrooms are learning domains “constituted as systems of knowledge-in-action, available as tools to guide present and future behavior, rather than systems of knowledge- out-of-context” that are disconnected from the traditions they are designed to support

(Applebee, 1996, p. 36). These learning domains are designed in such a way that students may enter the “culturally significant conversations” of the classroom—conversations that are valuable precisely because they are “organized around living traditions” (p. 49) where students learn through active participation in the generation of content knowledge rather than learning about the content itself.

The types of pedagogical practices that are valued in the classroom will encompass, surround, and either encourage or discourage the various stances students will take in approaching the texts (Gallas & Smagorinsky, 2002), as well as the connections that students will make with the text (Smagorinsky, P & O’Donnell-Allen,

1998b). The role that students adopt in this classroom context often affects their written

and spoken contributions to the classroom, and may reflect their perceived place in the

“Discourse” as much as it is an indicator of their proficiency in the more traditional

“discourse.” Students who are in classrooms that value alternative forms of

comprehension, expression, and personalized understanding of a literary text are more

likely to approach a text in a nontraditional or nonstandard way (Gallas & Smagorinsky,

2002). The students, then, are enabled to draw upon all of the ways of “behaving,

interacting, valuing, thinking, believing, speaking, and often reading and writing that are

accepted as instantiations of particular roles” (Gee, 1996, p. viii).

Maxine Greene (1995) asserted that students can be “empowered” as active,

reflective learners if teachers, by pedagogical planning and classroom design, “tap the

full range of human intelligence” by enabling and encouraging students to develop and

utilize “a number of languages…and not verbal or mathematical languages alone” (p. 57).

By opening up the range of activities that are considered appropriate and by widening the

array of acceptable responses in the classroom, it is more likely that students whose

social, cultural, and linguistic experiences do not completely align with the expectations

of a more verbocentric class or educator would have a greater chance of success in

school.

Choosing activities. Because oral and written language activities are not the only

sign systems that can be used to understand or navigate the world, teachers may explore

other sign systems that can be utilized for comprehension and expression. Artistic

representations, for example, have been shown to capture the ways in which students at various ages can explore content information, make sense of texts, and convey newfound

learning to others (Eisenkraft, 1999; Whitin, 2005). Using creative visuals, students

characterize and depict their understanding of many subjects as they plan, draft, and

organize information graphically. Knowledge construction, in such instances, consists of

taking information and transforming it in some way (Smagorinsky, 2001), resulting in an

expression of the students’ comprehension in a unique and “nonstandard” manner or format (Gallas & Smagorinsky, 2002). Such alternative ways for students to think about, appreciate, and express their comprehension of a text not only facilitates a deeper understanding (Richards, 2002), but encourages personal student engagement and inquiry

(Gallas & Smagorinsky, 2002; Smagorinsky & O’Donnell-Allen, 1998a).

Such exploration via alternative reader response contains more than written or verbal expressions like storytelling (Beach, 1993; Sipe, 2000). Included in alternative response are activities such as visual interpretations through drawing (Eisenkraft, 1999;

Smagorinsky, 1997; Whitin, 2005); movement response in student-choreographed dancing (Smagorinksy & Coppock, 1995); dramatic representations of student response

(Rice, 2002); and the use of visualization and subsequent graphic representations in

“storyboards” (Wilhelm, 1997). Greene (1995) argued:

Mastery of a range of languages is necessary if communication is to take place

beyond small enclosures within the culture; without multiple languages, it is

extremely difficult to chart the lived landscape, thematizing experience

over time. (p. 57)

One form of response that has not been explored extensively is music. Like written texts that “may trigger responses, evoke memories, awaken emotions and thoughts” (Probst, 1994) in its readers, music has the potential to arouse in its listeners

emotions that are both deep and significant (Sloboda, 1985). Juslin and Sloboda (2001) asserted that most people experience music with an “accompanying affective response of some sort” (p.3). Music, therefore, would seem a natural and logical medium for reading response activities that encourage students to focus and fuse the often bifurcated aspects of affect and cognition—the teaching of a literary work that begins with the response of the reader, regardless of “whether that response is emotional, visceral, aesthetic, or intellectual” (Probst, 1988, p. 36).

The following chapter reviews the research rooted in reader response theory and

studies that explored various types of response activities. This literature review includes

an examination of alternative response activities that utilize fine arts activities such as

dance, drama, and visual art, as well admittedly limited examples of music.

Chapter Two

Where words fail, music speaks. -Hans Christian Andersen

Review of the Literature

In this chapter, I continue the exploration of reader response from Chapter One by considering the long history of response research. I then look at reader response theory from an instructional point of view. Continuing with response as a basis for pedagogy, I define transmediation and look at its significance in alternative reader response activities.

Alternative response activities are those that often utilize the fine arts and where students are able to use sign systems other than language to express their reactions to and understanding of texts. I break these studies into two categories: those that consider the products and those that focus on the process of transmediation. The methodology utilized in these studies is highlighted in order to consider the differences between product- and process-oriented investigations; I then conclude this chapter by looking at music as a potential sign system in reader response research.

Reader Response Research

Eberdt (1990, as cited in Armstrong, 1992) identified three major shifts in both conception and investigation that reader response research has undergone over the last century. Beginning in 1912 until roughly 1939, reader response investigations focused on the text. Reader response research then highlighted the role of the reader from 1940 to

1969, shifting again around 1970 to response studies and theories that focused on the response process itself.

The first strain, text-focused research (1912-1939), looked at the importance of

the meaning inherent in the words on the page (Eberdt, 1990 as cited in Armstrong,

1992). From this conceptual perspective, there was only one acceptable interpretation of a

text, regardless of the identity of the reader or the context in which the reading event

occurs. Research during this period is best exemplified by the comprehensive case study

conducted by I. A. Richards’ (1929). Richards’ research focused on isolating factors that

appeared to impede university students’ written responses to poems—responses which

were either correct or incorrect, based on the external understanding of the text as

determined by literary experts. Such work placed emphasis on the importance of the

written content itself. The text was an encoded message that the author of that text

intended the reader to decode and comprehend. The response given by the reader, then,

was judged as right or wrong, good or bad, based on the reader’s ability to arrive within

the proximity of the text’s predetermined, anticipated meaning. These text-focused

studies eventually gave way to research which highlighted the role of the reader.

Reader-focused research (1940-1969) and research on the response process itself

that occurred after 1970 in theoretical and research designs (Eberdt, 1990 as cited in

Armstrong, 1992), were bridged, in great part, by the work of Louise Rosenblatt.

Rosenblatt’s (1938) literary criticisms and pedagogical philosophies placed a spotlight on the reader as a contributing source of meaning. Beach (1993) referred to the transactional

theory of reading developed by Rosenblatt as “experiential” because of its emphasis of

the readers’ processes of involvement, engagement, and personal experience during the

reading of the text. However, her work involved more than a simple response based on

feelings. Rosenblatt differentiated between the two approaches or stances that a reader

may take when engaging in a reading transaction: an aesthetic stance, in which the

reader’s attention and effort are directed toward a “lived through” experience of the

textual world, and an efferent stance, in which the reader attempts to carry away specific

information or details from the text. She emphasized that readers may move along a

continuum between these aesthetic and efferent modes of reading, and, in this process,

using a variety of reading strategies to extract meaning as well as relate to the text in an

experiential manner. Rosenblatt called the act of response as a reading “event”

(Rosenblatt, 1938, p. 30), and a focus on reading as an “event” or process eventually

propelled theory and research into the third phase.

Response research in the third stage focused on the reading process. Rosenblatt

(1978) came to emphasize that the reader was one of three integral aspects of the reading transaction: the reader, the text, and the context. Reading, then, was a process, a

“transaction” between reader and text, where the reader is an active meaning-maker during a reading event. This process included all of the social, cultural, and psychological experiences of the reader, as well as those incorporated into the reading event itself.

Reader response theory during this time stressed the integrated and ongoing relationships among text, reader, and context. It underscored the fact that meaning is derived through a process rather than by a simple extraction by the reader of meaning inherent in a text. In

her publication of The Reader, The Text, and The Poem (Rosenblatt, 1978), Rosenblatt

focused on a pedagogical program for classroom instruction, and reader research

eventually gave way to studies that focused on how students respond (e.g., Bleich 1978,

Purves & Beach, 1972), as well as response activities and their uses in classroom

contexts.

Reader Response Instruction

The advantages of reader response theory in pedagogical planning and classroom

implementation, according to the research, are many. Langer (1994) reported, based on her own research at the National Research Center on Literature Teaching and Learning, that reader response activities have the capacity to help students arrive at personalized responses, shift toward thoughtful and reflective interpretations, and eventually explore and accept alternative perspectives. Spiegel (1998) supported Langer’s (1994) finding that reader response activities assisted students’ literacy development. Spiegel (1998) reported that students’ literacy accomplishments develop and increase when reader response activities are integrated into classroom instruction; she further delineated six ways in which students benefit.

Spiegel (1998) suggested that reader response activities encourage students to

take ownership not only of what they read but also their responses to that reading. Spiegel

argued that students increase their ability to make personal connections with literary

texts; they expand their ability to accept and appreciate differing interpretations of

literary texts; they become more reflective and thoughtful in their reading; their higher

order and critical thinking abilities are enhanced; and they expand their range of potential

literature responses. Furthermore, McGee’s (1992) review of the research indicated that

the direct and explicit teaching of the distinction between aesthetic and efferent stances

(Zarillo & Cox, 1992) is one of several promising and innovative pedagogical practices

that have been shown to encourage students’ personal constructions of meaning from

literature. Among these practices, McGee also highlights written responses via literature

logs (Dekker, 1991 as cited in McGee, 1992), literary analysis presentations (Many &

Wiseman, 1992 as cited in McGee, 1992), and exploration of grand conversations (Eeds

& Wells, 1989 as cited in McGee, 1992).

Currently, reader response theory is one of three prominent theoretical paradigms

identified as influencing the pedagogical approaches utilized in the English language arts

classes for marginalized readers (Franzak, 2006). Franzak suggested that the most

significant benefit of reader response for marginalized readers is that such activity

prioritizes the reader’s schematic structure, and, in doing so, values the individual’s

interpretation and negates the belief that there is one right way to approach a literary

work. Marginalized readers, whose experiences with traditional literary canons are often

negative and discouraging (Applebee, 1996), experience increased willingness and

motivation when asked to enter a conversation where their initial reactions and opinions

are supported (Franzak, 2006) and where knowledge and skills are introduced within that

larger academic conversation and disciplinary tradition (Applebee, 1996).

Langer (1994), however, cautioned that creating an environment that supports

such a literary experience must focus instruction by following certain general guidelines.

These guidelines included utilizing instructional time as an opportunity for students to explore possibilities, while keeping their initial understandings of the text at the center of classroom discussions. Langer also suggested that the teacher should help students move beyond their initial (often superficial) understanding of a text in order to expand their

understanding through questioning, interpreting, participating in, and discussing, as well

as evaluating, the interpretations of others.

Like Langer, DeKay (1996) indicated that, despite the variegated assortment of instructional strategies and the lack of a complete and accurate portrait of what

constituted best practice in literacy instruction, four major categories of teaching techniques appeared to emerge during a review of the research. DeKay argued that despite the fact that these four procedures (peer group discussion, cognitive modeling by

the instructor, adopting an aesthetic approach, and reading aloud or dramatizing

literature) differed, it was clear from the literature reviewed that an “experience of

literature is encountered at all grade levels…[and] has become an essential element of

literary instruction” (p. 19). Finding meaningful and constructive ways to experience

literature in the English language arts classroom becomes a central issue, then, in pedagogical planning and curriculum development. The most common and traditional means by which students have been asked to experience literature include writing assignments and verbal discussions. However, alternatives to traditional response activities have been researched. In order for students to make meaning in a mode other than traditional language activities (reading, writing, speaking, and listening), students must be given opportunities to engage in alternative response activities that involve the process of “transmediation.”

Transmediation

“Transmediation,” as both a term and a theory was first introduced by Suhor

(1984), and highlighted the ways in which students can cross sign systems to make

meaning during the transactional reading process. Suhor indicated that there are two

types of transmediations: literal transmediations and imaginative transmediations. A one-

to-one textual connection, more common in classroom situations, would be considered a

literal transmediaton consistent with activities such as “making a raft like the one

described in Huckleberry Finn; writing a paraphrase of a poem read in class; making a

slide show to illustrate a short story” (p. 250). While not considered as valuable as an imaginative transmediation in representing student thinking or understanding cognitive processing, such connections still involve a translation from one medium to another.

Transmediation, rooted in the reader response theory as explained above, has been shown to help students make personal connections to their reading, offer individualized interpretations of texts, and increase the active engagement of learners (Leland & Harste,

1994). By combining the bifurcated aspects of cognition and affect in education through transmedial activity, students are able to become active meaning-makers during the reading process because they must “invent a connection between the two sign systems, as the connection does not exist a priori” (Siegel, 1995, p. 455).

Transmediation in Alternative Reader Response Research

The studies included in the following review of alternative response and transmediation research have been divided into two categories: those that focus on the process of transmediation and those that look more specifically at the result, or product, of transmediation. In 1972, Purves and Beach indicated that very few studies have attempted to explore the process of individual reader’s responses. In other words, little was known about what happens to the reader from the time when he or she picks up the literary text to when the reader has completed it. Instead, more work had, at that time, investigated the product of response—which, at the time of publication, was primarily the critical essay.

The studies reviewed here varied greatly in research methodology, and involved students ranging from first grade classrooms all the way to secondary school. In these studies, students have experienced literature and responded to that literary text in a

variety of ways, including read-alouds ( Sipe, 2000); art (Eisenkraft, 1999; Smagorinsky,

1997; Whitin, 1996, 2005); dancing (Smagorinksy & Coppock, 1995); visualizing

(Wilhelm, 1997); and drama (Rice, 2002). What is most interesting when looking at this

research is that, although music is usually mentioned as an acceptable sign system, no

studies concentrated their investigation solely on students’ use of music compositions or

musical texts in English language arts classrooms, despite the fact that music has been

shown to increase on-task behavior (Davidson & Powell, 1986), improve listening skills

(Savan, 1999), and increase active engagement (Ebisutani, 1991) in educational activities

in other learning contexts.

Studies that focus on the process of transmediation. Such literary examination via

alternative reader response activity includes more than the written responses provided by

students; exploration may take the form of nontraditional verbal expressions such as read-

aloud response (Sipe, 2000) and through “think-aloud” procedures (Jannssen, Braaksma,

& Rijlaarsdam, 2006). While these two studies varied greatly in both methodology and

participant population, it is significant to note that both studies looked carefully and

critically at the reading process by focusing on meaning construction as it occurred.

Rather than conceiving of reader response as a consequence of reading or by conducting an analysis of a student response byproduct (e.g. a student’s drawing as an artistic representation of response to text), these studies attempted to capture the thinking processes that transpired during meaning-making.

Sipe (2000) conducted a 7-month descriptive study in which the researcher

analyzed the responsive utterances of first and second graders during three types of read-

aloud situations: large, whole-class read-alouds of storybooks conducted by the

classroom teacher; small-group read-alouds of 5 children each (2 groups) conducted by

the researcher; and one-on-one read-alouds completed by the researcher with each of the

10 children from the 2 smaller groups. Of the data collected, 45 representative transcripts

where chosen for analysis. Sipe indicated that in a vast majority (73%) of the young

children’s responsive talk during read-alouds, the students utilized analytical behavior in

attempting literary understanding. These analyses included viewing the text (picture book) as an objective product distinct from both its author and illustrator. Students engaging in analytical behavior focused on the language of the story, constructed interpretations of literary or narrative meaning, and discussed the connections between fiction and reality.

For Sipe, analytical behavior and understanding meant that students dealt with the

literary piece by following what he termed a “hermeneutic impulse.” This impulse urged

the student to concern himself with interpreting and understanding the text “as an object

or cultural product” (p. 268). This analytical behavior is similar to the type of literary

analysis common to secondary classrooms where students are systematically taught to

identify the more objective aspects of literature in English language arts classes; these

include literary elements such as symbolism, narrative structure, literary devices, as well

as reading a traditional canon (Applebee, 1996).

Sipe (2000) further found that the more evaluative, expressive, and personalized

categories identified during data analysis were utilized the least. Only 5% of student talk involved performative behavior that required the students to enter the textual world. In students who exhibited performative talk, there was a reliance on text to perform or signify—a manipulation of the text for their own creative purposes, like dramatizations.

Even fewer student verbal exchanges (less than 2%) involved transparent behavior—

activities and situations where students extensively and intensely participated in a textual

world that was identical with the student’s world. Given the types of transmediatory

connections made by the students in this study, little was learned about the more

evaluative and personalized expressions that students might choose to create.

Such results, however, are consistent with the findings of Jannssen, Braaksma, &

Rijlaarsdam (2006) who conducted a study of 19 secondary students—9 strong readers and 10 weaker readers. Utilizing a think-aloud strategy in which the students were encouraged to verbalize their thinking while reading short texts, these researchers found

that weaker readers, on the whole, spent more time (approximately 71% of responsive

utterances) retelling the narrative, making inferences, and detecting or explicating reading

problems with interpreting the text. This was compared to the think-aloud remarks of

stronger readers, who spent only 40% of their responses on such activity, concentrating

more time and effort on higher level reading strategies such as making associations,

evaluating the text, constructing emotional connections, and expressing metacognitive

awareness and metacognitive behavior. The 92 think-aloud transcripts obtained during

the course of the study indicated that the stronger readers were more willing and able to

express personal and subjective engagement. Additionally, the think-aloud transcripts of

stronger readers showed that they were more flexible during the course of reading—

adjusting their perceptions of the story or suspending judgment about the value of the text

until the end of the reading. Weaker readers’ responses, however, were more closely

aligned to the actual text—reflecting the need to reconstruct the plot of the text or

exhibiting an attempt to understand the narrative structure during the meaning-making

process. The think-aloud responses of weak students were not less elaborate, however.

The transcripts of the weaker students were often as long (or longer) than that of good

students, due at least in part to the fact that weaker readers engaged in more retelling of

the stories.

These two studies looked carefully at the reading process by utilizing the

utterances of meaning-makers as they articulated their efforts in making meaning. These

studies attempted to capture the thinking process (i.e., meaning construction) as it

occurred. The underlying assumption is that the verbalizations of the students are

reasonably accurate representations of the concurrent, albeit silent, cognitive processes

and literary interpretations. While Sipe (2000) concedes that a more comprehensive more

precise description and portrayal of student thinking would include other responses

(posturing, facial expressions, dramatizations, e.g.), verbalizations nevertheless provide

significant insight into underlying mental processing.

Collecting spontaneous utterances is not the only methodology employed in

studies that focus on the process of transmediation. Smagorinsky and Coppock (1995),

for example, utilized a copy of a videotaped dance to incite the students’ recollection of

their thinking and reasoning in a process called “stimulated recall” (Bloom, 1954, as cited

in Smagorinsky & Coppock, 1995). The two students who choreographed the dance, Jane

and Martha, were residents in a drug and alcohol rehabilitation center that afforded the

students both therapy and education. Using alternative response activities that were both

valued and encouraged in the classroom of the second author of this research study, the

two students were able to explore possible interpretations of the short story. The

researchers in this study interviewed Jane and Martha, employing open-ended questions

as they watched the videotaped student-choreographed dance they created in order to express their understanding of a short story. These questions were designed to encourage reflection on the part of the students regarding the thought processes underlying specific behaviors or actions on the videotape. This interview resulted in a 22-page transcript that was used for analysis.

The product of this response activity study (the dance itself) could not be analyzed for several reasons. Smagorinsky and Coppock (1995) argued that, theoretically-speaking, it is the “psychological functioning mediated through the dance”

(p. 281), not the dance itself that is the suitable and appropriate unit of analysis. The only way researchers were able to access the mental processing that negotiates the activity of consciousness and the material context was to gather an account of student thinking brought forth by the stimulated recall. Jane and Martha’s “thinking about the signs of the literary text both shaped and was shaped by the process of choreographing and performing their dance” (p. 286), and through an interplay of reader, text, and context these students were able to literally work through their thinking, arriving at an interpretation that is acceptable to the reader. Performance, in this case via dance, provides opportunities for students to investigate alternative interpretations of a story,

“try on” different analytical perspectives, empathize with characters, and adapt their thinking as they construct a meaningful explanation of the story.

Rice (2002) utilized performance as well, but in the form of educational drama.

Rather than simply providing opportunities for students to employ alternative sign systems for an expression of their overall comprehension of the story, Rice utilized dramatization as a method for allowing students to explore and expand their definitions

of masculinity and femininity. The 24 third graders in the study were asked to read and

then rate 4 stories according to whether they “didn’t like it,” “liked it ok,” or “liked it a

lot,” as well as provide a written rationale for this rating. Two of the stories portrayed

males in nontraditional gender roles; two of the stories portrayed females in

nontraditional roles. The students were then provided time and opportunity to answer

guided response questions individually (in writing), discuss those questions in peer-led literature circles, and then work together to create scripts. These scripts were later used to

dramatize the stories, an activity that took place in front of the entire class. After the dramatization, the students were again asked to rate the story, as well as provide a rationale for that rating.

Rice (2002) concluded, based on crosstabulations of the ratings and the students’

written rationales that dramatizing the stories positively affected the students’ affective

responses to literature. Following the dramatizations, the ratings for all of the books

increased. Part of the problem with this study, however, is that the primarily quantitative

nature of the research design did little to explicate how the alternative response activity

affected student comprehension, especially their understanding of gender. If, as

Smagorinsky and Coppock (1995) argued, the only way researchers are able to access the

mental processing that negotiates the activity of consciousness and the material context is

to assemble an account of student thinking, the Rice (2002) study provided little data

concerning cognitive processing. The written rationales were not utilized in any

meaningful way in data analysis, and there was no definite way to ascertain if the

dramatization itself was responsible for the increase in positive affective response. The

students’ affective response to the literature could have been altered as a result of other

literary activities—such as writing answers to the guided response questions individually, discussing those questions in peer-led literature circles, or when working with their groups to create scripts. Yet the fact that any or all of these other activities might have encouraged a shift in students’ perceptions of the literature (and their acceptance of nontraditional gender roles) is not addressed.

All four studies reviewed above employed methodology that attempted to capture the thinking of students as they responded to literature. Transmedial products were either not available or not suitable units for data analysis. The research reviewed in this category, however, clearly indicated that students spent a great deal of time attempting to

“get at” a meaning that was perceived as accurate or correct; a vast majority of students were still more concerned with analyzing text, rather than experiencing or evaluating it.

Despite the potential these activities had to create spaces where students could explore more affective and emotive responses to the literature, students still clung to traditional, analytical literary responses. This may be due, in part, to the influence traditional learning has had on students regarding literary analysis.

Rather than encouraging students to arrive at the interpretations and embrace the opinions of literary critics, Probst (1994) indicated that he believed that a teacher’s influence within the context of the classroom ought to be an expansion and amplification of the critical and “vital” influence that is intrinsic in literature and inherent in an individual reading of that text. In doing so, teachers need to do more than simply respect and encourage the influence of written texts upon readers—educators should develop classroom contexts that capitalize on what students already know and understand in their own lives. It is suggested here that music, as an integral part of students’ daily lives

outside of the classroom, is one aspect of their lived experiences that can be utilized for

this purpose. Musical activities, because they are more familiar to the students and are

embraced as an acceptable alternative sign system, may enhance students’ understanding

of literature.

Studies that focus on the products of transmediation. Another form of literary

examination and meaning-making includes an analysis of alternative reader response

products. Smagorinsky and O’Donnell-Allen (1998a, 1998b), for example, investigated

how students utilized drawing when interpreting text. Using body biographies—life-sized

human outlines that students filled (with words, phrases, pictures, and symbols)

according to their understanding of the character within the text—students were

encouraged to explore the characters in Shakespeare’s Hamlet. This activity was called a

“collaborative multimedia compos[ition]” (Smagorinsky & O-Donnell-Allen, 1998b, p.

199) because it encouraged an ongoing discussion (collaborative) that centered around

the text using a variety of artistic, visual, and textual cueing systems (multimedia) and

that resulted in a physical representation of student thinking and mental processing

(composition).

Smagorinksy & O-Donnell-Allen (1998a, 1998b) found that students spent a vast

majority of time drawing and reflecting primarily upon the literary meaning of the text as

they placed signs, symbols, pictures, and words graphically on the body biographies. The

authors also expressed surprise at what few personal connections were made to the

literature, including an overall lack of talk concerning students’ related experiences or

emotional responses to the text itself (1998b). Furthermore, the results indicated that, while the activity showed a propensity to encourage engagement with the text, there were

other factors that influenced the students’ commitment to and involvement with the

activity itself (1998a). These factors included the teacher’s expectations, the activity

framework provided by the teacher, time constraints within which the students worked,

the students’ levels of engagement with schooling in general, the type of talk within the

small cooperative groups, and the issues of control and collaboration in the creative

process.

When looking more closely at the discussion and the resulting artifact of a

specific all-female group during the body biography study, Smagorinsky and O-Donnell-

Allen (1999) also found an unanticipated result of the reader response activity discussed

above. These female students were empowered by the transmediatory opportunity—a situation where meaning was constructed through collaborative discussions and artistic renderings. It was shown, through an analysis of their small group discussions, that the four girls engaged more fully in intellectual talk, took more risks, and, eventually, developed a complex working relationship. As a result, they also produced a sophisticated artistic representation of Ophelia, an unhappy, isolated, and multifaceted character in Hamlet.

Smagorinsky and O-Donnell-Allen (1999) emphasized that such activity does not

take place separated from the larger classroom context. The classroom environment in

this study was designed carefully by the second author, and, as such, promoted

opportunities for students to start response with tentative interpretations, make

connections, and think actively and creatively about resolving problems. The authors end

their article by urging educators to “see the potential for alternative ways of talking about

literature…and possible mediums for interpretation for the full range of students who come to [their] classes” (p. 41).

Smagorinsky and O-Donnell-Allen (1999) were not the only researchers to,

highlighted the importance of the classroom as being either a supportive or discouraging

environment for semiotic processing and transmediaton. The purpose of Whitin’s (2005)

study was to isolate and identify features of pedagogical practices within the classroom

environment that take advantage and make the most of social learning and alternative

modes of communication. An earlier study completed by Whitin (1996) had indicated

that the creation of visual products were not an end in and of themselves, but were useful

as literacy tools because of the student talk that surrounded them. The discovery of the

primary role of such conversation (centered around the visual representations) led Whitin,

a teacher-researcher, to collect data in his own fourth-grade classroom for three years.

Data involved the sketch-to-stretch strategy (Short, Harste, & Burke, 1996 as cited in

Whitin, 2005), and included student artifacts (students’ visual representations and reader-

response journal entries), informal interviews with students, and field notes gathered

during spontaneous conversations with students as well as during planned collaborative

sketching.

The results of Whitin’s (2005) study indicated that there were four pedagogical practices that appeared to capitalize on the potential inherent in both classroom discourse and visual signification. First and foremost, the author stated that the development of extended metaphorical thinking, shared and encouraged over the course of the academic year, can help students learn about making many types of connections. By modeling metaphorical thinking, students learn to bridge gaps in their own understanding and find

ways, both verbally and visually, to justify their thinking in social forums. Secondly, the need for exploratory time that included a wide range of student interpretations was also significant. By providing access to the literary thoughts and analysis of others, student thinking was strengthened as they attempted to resolve issues raised by multiple interpretations of text. Whitin also suggested that closely and intentionally pairing the

initial text with a second book created opportunities to modify or extend the metaphorical

thinking. Perhaps what is more important, the intentional changes in student grouping during the meaning-making process allowed students to explore ideas both alone and in groups whose members varied, allowing students access to the metaphorical thinking of others, thereby making adjustments to their own interpretations of the literature.

Most recently, Cowan and Albers (2006) reemphasized the importance of

building a context and designing an environment that supports and encourages the use of alternative activities as a means of exploring literature. Their work as teachers- researchers (Albers & Cowan, 1998; Cowan, 2001) with fourth and fifth graders focused on the use of mask-making as a parallel process utilized in conjunction with poetry writing. Rather than beginning the response process with a reaction to reading a text, the teacher-researchers ground the writing process in the personal experience of an emotion, capitalizing on visual and performing arts lessons to assist the students in writing with more imagination, lucidity, and accuracy. In this study, the products of the transmediation process includes both the masks and the writing—i.e., the student-generated poems.

Students engage in a variety of activities designed to assist them moving toward a deeper, more complex understanding of what it means to be an author—these including dramatizing the emotion they have chosen, working with synonyms and antonyms of

their word, and sketching faces that match their emotion. It is only after these encounters

with fine arts activities that a text introduced.

Cowan and Albers (2006) choose the award-winning book, Shadow (Brown, 1972

as cited in Cowan & Albers, 2006) to help students explore the use of poetry. The text,

Shadow, is a long poem that utilizes extended metaphor, similes, rhythm, and

personification to explore the life of a “shadow.” The reading of the text, followed by

visual arts lessons in the ability of color and shape to generate certain feelings in the

viewer, students made a 3-D mask (based on their initial sketched) use papier-mache΄ and

tempera paint. They are encouraged to decorate these with feathers, glitter, jewelry, etc.,

and then write an extended poem that explores the emotion of choice. The authors

indicated that this literacy experience encouraged personal investment from the students

resulting in “strong texts from each and every student” (p.132), although what constituted

a “strong” text was not clearly explained.

It is significant to note that both Cowan and Albers (2006) and Whitin (2005)

emphasized, for the purpose of their research studies, the importance of the product as a

means of understanding student thinking. Within the classrooms where the authors acted

as teacher-researchers, the products (e.g., the masks, the poems, the sketches) were not

considered by the students in the same manner as “products” in a traditional class. When

asked to share their creations with the class, students did not “assume a presentational mode of talk…and treat the posters as finished, nonnegotiable products” (Whitin, 2005, p. 386), but considered the comments of their peers, generating new versions of their own products, as well as those of their peers, and making connections among the products.

Thus, the ability of students to continue to negotiate the meaning extended beyond what

would normally be considered a culminating project. The research exemplified the ability

of transmediation in the classroom to support and encourage student thinking about a

variety of texts—not just written, literary texts—but the newly-generated, student-created

ones.

This last finding was maintained by observations made by Eisenkraft (1999) in her literature classroom. By allowing her students to work with watercolors over the course of several days, Eisenkraft found that students were more willing to accept and explore the literary interpretations of their peers when discussed via the visual representations rather than during traditional class discussions of the text. She further argued that students articulated literary elements (such as theme, tone, setting, characterization) in more spontaneous, as well as meaningful and personalized ways when encouraged to connect their visual representations to the text. Additionally, in sharing their watercolor responses in a “gallery” setting, the students were encouraged to continue meaning extension beyond the finished visual product. In doing so, the students made connections to not only the written, literary texts, but the newly-made visual ones.

Eisenkraft’s (1999) findings, although they were reached through a series of

admittedly nonempirical observations, were also ascertained by the extensive research of

Short, Kauffman, and Kahn (2000). These researchers determined that children at a

variety of age, grade, and ability levels were capable of expressing their thinking about

literature through art, drama, math, and music—and that these expressions were not

simply a transferring of information, but involved the creation of new ideas and concepts.

Short, Kauffman, and Kahn (2000) stated that students began with an exploration

of an aesthetic response to literature that took many forms, although a majority of

students chose artistic forms of representation. It was only during this initial phase that

students showed any propensity toward the utilization of music—and these activities

were limited. One group of students played a particular classical (pastoral) piece of music that connected to scenes in the story that were significant to them. Another small group of students (who had taken piano lessons) chose a favorite illustration from a text and went to the classroom piano to find a tune that fit their thinking about that image. Another individual student used the mbira (an African instrument) introduced in the class to express herself and her thoughts about an African folk tale.

The students then extended those initial affective or emotional responses by

reflecting upon and analyzing them intellectually, eventually constructing a deeper, more

complex understanding of the literary text by making connections, essentially building

bridges, between the literary text and the alternative modes of expression that the students

have chosen and used as tools for learning. In most cases, students have opportunities to

share with the class through presentation, performance, discussion, or a combination of

these. Short, Kauffman, and Kahn (2000) indicated that these occasions of collaborations

usually create situations of transformation. Given the chance to talk about what they have

learned or what their products of transmediation are, students often alter their initial

perceptions of the text or modify their understanding of the text.

Such sharing and exploratory conversations are of vital importance in the development of a supportive social situation that encourages risk-taking, according to

Whitin (1994). Whitin utilized her seventh grade classroom in order to study the visual responses of students to a variety of literary texts. Rather than creating elaborate lessons

to provide instruction in art (Cowan & Albers, 2006), Whitin (1994) simply had the

students respond visually in their reader response journals, to which she replied in

writing. She also provided opportunities for students to discuss their visual responses in

small groups. Whitin indicated that the exploration of multiple interpretations of texts, coupled with an environment that nurtured even the most tentative and halting expressions of understanding, created students who showed an uncommon willingness to revise their initial drafts, including both written and visual responses. Whitin further concluded that students increased their ability to think symbolically and to reflect constructively upon the nature of literacy through the use of visualization techniques.

Summary and Discussion

Despite the fact that music has been consistently listed or mentioned as an

acceptable, albeit alternative, sign system in which students can explore and express

meaning, little research has been conducted in the classroom utilizing music as an

opportunity for response. Many studies reviewed have looked at transmediation through

analyses of both its processes and products, and most of the researchers indicated that

starting with the students’ original emotional and affective responses to the literature was

helpful only insofar as it set the stage for a deeper, intellectual analysis of the literature.

If, as Aiello (1994) has argued, the aim of language is to communicate thought, and one

of the main goals of music is to heighten emotion and express one’s self aesthetically, it

appears logical that music could be utilized for helping students access and focus on an emotive response.

Music, given its inherent emotional and aesthetic nature, appears a perfect, yet

virtually unexplored, outlet for students’ expression and exploration of literary texts.

Music’s omnipresence and pervasiveness in daily lived contexts makes it a viable option

as an instructional tool in the classroom. Its ability to make one cry, create a feeling of happiness, stimulate memories, and communicate wistfulness and passion make it the perfect vehicle for students’ expression of their understanding of various texts. The experience of emotion engendered by music listening is linked to the social context and to the discourses that are used to make sense of that social framework, much in the same way that the lived-through experience of an aesthetic stance is rooted in the context of the reading transaction. Because both music and language are ubiquitous in students’ lives and reflect the cultural contexts within which students listen and learn, music is an untapped outlet for student self-exploration and self-expression.

Andersen (1996) has argued that the utility of music in the classroom can be especially compelling for educators dealing with adolescents. Music, in the form of prerecorded music, radio, and music videos provide adolescents with a safe retreat, a refuge from environments that are often perceived as confusing, indifferent, or even hostile. Music can provide students with an acceptable “expression of their discontent, anxiety, anger, and hopes” (p. 30), and, when integrated with various language and thinking activities, offers opportunities for teachers to experience great success in educational situations.

Like Andersen, Gallas and Smagorinsky (2002) have argued that students can understand literature when provided opportunities to explore language in many nonstandard ways. In utilizing fine arts in the classroom, they have shown that it is not so much that students do not know how to read traditional texts, but that they do not know how to approach these texts in a conventional social and educational manner. Rosenblatt

(1978) indicated that readers not only pay attention to the words themselves and the

extrinsic meanings, but they also attend to the “images, feelings, attitudes, associations,

and ideas” (p. 10) that the words evoke. Music, then, may give students another option

for engagement with texts.

By providing students with a means and method familiar to them, music may better equip students to approach text in a manner that will increase understanding, promote pleasure and fulfillment, and encourage inquiry. Thus, investigating music as an

instructional tool used for the purpose of facilitating meaning-making during the reading

of literature must look at the student in the learning context—as both a music listener and a text reader. The researcher must look concurrently at potential emotional and cognitive responses to music and the students’ aesthetic and efferent responses to literature. As is suggested by the brief quote offered by Hans Christian Andersen at the beginning of this chapter, music may provide an opportunity and a forum for students to attend to those thoughts and feelings they may find difficult to articulate in spoken or written language.

The following chapter discusses the methodology of this study—research that focused on one secondary teacher’s attempt to incorporate music into an instructional activity so that students could explore their thinking about literary texts.

Chapter Three

Music is well said to be the speech of angels; in fact, nothing among the utterances allowed to man is felt to be so divine. It brings us near to the infinite. -Thomas Carlyle

Methodology

This study focused on two classrooms in a secondary school and how the students in those two learning contexts utilized music to make connections to a literary text. One

class included eleventh grade students that were considered above average readers and

were in the advanced placement class (a label used interchangeably with honors) as part

of a college preparatory program. The other class was comprised of eleventh and twelfth

grade students who had been identified as “struggling” readers, based on their inability to

pass the reading and writing portions of the State Graduation Test. The same teacher

taught both of these classes. Three questions guided this study:

1. What happens when students are encouraged to create musical soundtracks;

how are musical compositions and musical texts utilized during the meaning-

making process of creating musical soundtracks?

2. What are the students’ perceptions regarding the utility of alternative response

activities in assisting them in negotiating meaning of the literary texts?

3. How did students perceive these activities as part of the larger, ongoing

curricular conversation designed and implemented by the secondary English

teachers regarding response to literature?

Design of the Study

This study was rooted in a qualitative paradigm; the intent of qualitative research is to understand a process rather than the particular outcomes or products (Bogdan &

Biklen, 2003). Due to the qualitative nature of this research, the data is reported primarily in words that are “rich in description” (p. 2), rather than in numerical statistics. Thus, the data are not quantifiable in a traditional sense but are descriptive in nature. The study used an observation and interview method of qualitative research that captured direct quotations “about people’s personal perspectives and experiences” (Patton, 2002, p. 40), as well as an analysis of student artifacts, specifically the students’ alternative reader response activities.

This study employed naturalistic inquiry (Patton, 2002) in which I, as the primary investigator, observed the setting in its natural state; the participants involved were a direct source of data. Neither the setting nor the outcomes were manipulated or constrained. I was an observer in a “real-world setting” (p. 39) as the activities and discussions in the classroom unfolded, serving as the key instrument to collect and interpret the gathered data as the research evolved and as themes or patterns emerged

(Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). Although I was principally an observer, there was one opportunity for me conduct the class. This occurred during the presentation of the students’ narrative soundtracks to the class.

Gaining Access

Entrée into a field is the first of three fieldwork stages identified by Patton (2002).

Entry consists of two separate components. The first is the negotiation process with the

“gatekeepers” of a field setting concerning the roles, the rules, and the conditions of the

study; the second is the “actual physical entry” into the setting in order to begin the

process of collecting data (p. 310).

Gaining access and building rapport with the school officials, the teacher, and the

students were important aspects of my study. As a first step, I contacted the teacher

participant of this study in March, 2006. She was purposively selected (Patton, 2002)

because she had consistently implemented alternative reader response activities in her

classroom when she had been my daughter’s English teacher when my daughter was a

junior in high school. Due to my daughter’s participation in her advanced placement

English class several years prior to the conception of this study, I knew that Mrs.

Stanford [a pseudonym] used a variety of fine arts activities in her classroom. From

previous conversations with the teacher and based on artifacts my daughter had created in

her classroom, I was certain that her classroom would be a suitable place to conduct the

study. Without hesitation, the teacher agreed to allow me access to her classroom during

the 2006-2007 school year. While Mrs. Stanford indicated she could not be certain what

classes would be assigned to her, she assured me that the fine arts activities she implemented would continue to be part of her planned curriculum. She was then given a letter of consent to participate in the study (see Appendix A).

In April, 2006, I contacted the principal of the high school, Mrs. Heinemann [a

pseudonym] to obtain her consent; while she seemed enthusiastic about the research

project, she indicated that she could not allow such a study until I obtained consent from

the district. Following their approval, Mrs. Heinemann indicated she would be pleased to

allow me access to Mrs. Stanford’s classes. I proceeded to contact the district’s assistant

superintendent in charge of curriculum, Dr. Vincentia [a pseudonym] in email format.

Within a couple of days, I received a return email, outlining the materials I would need to

submit in hard copy, including a cover letter explaining my intended purpose, an outline

of the teacher and students’ participation, a completed university IRB (Internal Review

Board) protocol, and a blank copy of the permission forms to be used. These materials were organized and submitted to Dr. Vincentia in June, 2006.

One week after submission, I received a second email from Dr. Vincentia stating that the materials had been received and that she had personally reviewed and approved them. The final step of study approval would be a second perusal by the district’s

Superintendent. Within three weeks of this second email, I received notification via letter that the Superintendent of the district had granted approval for the study. Both Mrs.

Heinemann (the principal) and Mrs. Stanford (the classroom teacher) had received copies of the approval letter.

The last part of gaining access involved the students and their guardians. The students, who were eleventh and twelfth graders, were chosen based on their inclusion in the teacher participant’s advanced placement or SGT (State Graduation Test) recovery classes.

For the first few weeks of the study, I simply observed Mrs. Stanford’s classes. I

was introduced as a student observer from the university who was interested in the types

of fine arts activities being done and the literary pieces being read in class. This provided me with several opportunities to talk and socialize informally with the students before,

during, and after classes.

The fourth week of class, Mrs. Stanford allowed class time for me to explain my research study. Because I had established a pleasant and informal rapport with a vast

majority of students in the two classes, I had few questions from the students and most

seemed eager to “help” me with my “project.” The students were given a recruitment

letter outlining the project and its requirements, and were asked to sign an assent letter. If

they were age 18 or older, they were given a consent letter (see Appendices B and C,

respectively). Those students who had not yet reached the age of 18 were given a parental consent form to take home (see Appendix D). All of the students in both classes agreed to participate in the study; however, two students in the SGT recovery class failed to return the parental consent letter and were excluded from the study.

Context of the Study

The context of a study is significant. As Gee (1996) argues, the ability to

appreciate language and literacy events must include an understanding of the social

contexts in which these D/discourses occur. These social contexts are comprised of many

things, including not only language, but also “objects, tools, technologies,” (p. 11) and

particular ways of thinking, acting, feeling, valuing, and believing. The following section

explores the district and the school contexts of this study. A more detailed examination of

the classroom contexts are presented in Chapter Four.

The District

The site for this study was a suburban secondary school in a Midwestern state.

The district in which this secondary school was located is 13 miles from the downtown

metropolis, and encompassed a relatively large geographical territory, roughly 56 square

miles. The district served approximately 10,000 students. It included nine elementary

schools that housed grades one through five. These elementary schools were spread

evenly and strategically across the district in order to expedite transportation; these

schools supplied the three middle schools that accommodated grades six, seven, and

eight. These middle schools, in turn, were feeder schools for the district’s two secondary

schools—one of which was located in the East central part of the district and one of

which was located in the West central part of the district. Thus, the two secondary

schools in this district were large, and they educated over 3000 students per academic

year. The study reported here took place in the West central high school.

The School

Many secondary schools utilize a seven bell system. In a seven bell system, high

school students take seven classes each day. The classes last approximately 45 to 50

minutes each. Most classes in a seven bell system are taken for the entire academic year

or two semesters—these usually include classes required for graduation, such as English,

mathematics, science, and social studies courses. Some courses, however, are taken for

only one or half of one semester—these are usually called “electives” and consist of

specialized classes. These are courses that focus on the visual arts, instrumental and vocal

music, health, physical education, or trades like woodworking, home economics, child

care classes, metalworking, computer science, and graphics arts. When scheduling

conflicts occur, students are often placed in “study halls.” Study halls are non-

instructional periods; students are, instead, given the time to complete class work or

homework from other courses.

The secondary school in this study, however, had replaced the seven bell system

with a “block” system. The block system utilized at this high school consisted of a four- bell day. The classes in the block scheduling lasted twice as long as a more traditional class—approximately 90-95 minutes and were taken for only one full semester,

regardless of the type of class (required or elective). After the first half of the academic year was completed, a second set of four classes was taken for the remainder of the year.

According to the school administration, the advantages of the block system were many.

Students, for example, were able to take an extra course every academic year (eight classes per year instead of seven). Additionally, no students were placed in “study halls” due to scheduling conflicts, which meant that all students were provided with at least one hour of added instructional time. School representatives also asserted that, due to the extended class periods, teachers were able to incorporate texts, materials, speakers, and activities that would have been difficult or impossible to employ in a more traditional setting consisting of limited class time. As a result of the block system utilized in this secondary school, educators employed there were not only encouraged, but also expected to utilize a variety of resources for instructional purposes in their content areas. In this way, the teacher observed during the course of this study was supported in her decision to include a variety of fine arts activities in her English language arts classes.

The setting of the study can further be broken down into the two specific classrooms. The dynamics of the classroom set-up and the curricular conversations within them were an integral part of this study. As such, they will be reported, in detail, in

Chapter Four.

Methodology

Pilot Study

This study was built upon a pilot study I conducted in January through April in

2006 that examined an alternative reader response assignment in which students utilized

music to demonstrate their understanding of a literary text introduced in the classroom.

The findings of this pilot study indicated that the seven students who agreed to participate

produced soundtracks and narratives that were unique, but shared some specific

characteristics. Students, for example, used a surprisingly wide array of musical genres,

as well as musical periods, in the development of the soundtracks. The students

connected the literary text to the musical text through seven types of associations that were derived through open coding; the relationships generated by the students were clearly linked to the specific response processes that have been outlined and described by other theorists (Beach, 1993; Beach & Marshall, 1990; Purves & Beach, 1972).

The pilot study also revealed that, in looking at the differences in responses by

achievement levels, there were few differences in the types or distribution of connections

made by the female participant in the “top” reading group and the female participant in

the “bottom” group. The study also disclosed that there were apparent differences in

approach based on gender. While there were only two males who agreed to participate (as

opposed to five females), the soundtracks created by these boys tended to have fewer

connections per song, the connections themselves were not as diverse, and the males

utilized intertextual connections more frequently than the girls. There was sufficient

evidence to warrant further investigations concerning gender differences and the potential

of the soundtrack-making process to encourage lower achievers.

A limitation of the pilot study was its inability to put the soundtrack-making

process into context. Because there were only two observations of the classroom

dynamics and no observations of the discussions of the literary text, little was known

about the influence of classroom context on the students’ ability and willingness to

negotiate personal meaning through the musical reader response activity. Alvermann

(2001) noted that the positions and roles of students within the literacy classroom are determined by the interactions between and among students and teacher, and response activities are part of a larger and ongoing academic conversation that should be considered. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the transmediatory products and projects created by students in a secondary English classroom. Unlike the pilot study that looked at the transmediatory projects (i.e. musical soundtracks) in isolation, this study looked at these projects against the backdrop of curricular decisions and classroom discussions that were designed to support a learning environment that values alternative reader response activities. It also investigated how such curricula was received, understood, and subsequently utilized by the students in order to negotiate meaning during the creation of transmediatory products.

Data Sources

Data collection consisted of interviews, observations, and student artifacts. Data were derived from a variety of sources. These sources included the teacher, the students in both classes, and through observations of classroom activities and interactions. A description of each data source is described below and a visual representation of the informants and the sources, as well as the data and their focus can be seen in Table 3.1.

Observations. Because this study was concerned with all three aspects of curricula

(Applebee, 1996)—the planned, the enacted, and the received—classroom observations during instruction and implementation of alternative response activities were both appropriate and necessary. As the primary investigator, I conducted regular overt observations of classroom instruction in order to gather data on the enacted curricula

(Patton, 2002). These observations entailed a holistic focus that included, but was not

limited to the content of the classroom discourse; the types of curricular discussions in

which the students and teachers are engaged; and the implementation of the alternative

response activities.

For a vast majority of the observations, I remained silent as a “passive

participant” (Spradley, 1980). During these times, I simply observed the class

discussions, noted student participation, monitored teacher instruction, and surveyed the

implementation of various activities. I took field notes but limited my interactions with

the students and the teacher.

On one occasion, however, I was asked to conduct the classes. According to

Spradley (1980), as a “participant observer,” I had to opportunity “to engage in activities

appropriate to the situation” (p. 54). Because the students recognized my interest in their

finished soundtracks and narratives, they seemed eager to share the products in the

classroom context. As a participant, I allowed them first to present whatever aspects of

their soundtracks they chose to share. The students’ presentations took about ten minutes

each, and usually consisted of the students reading (or performing) their original

composition, and then choosing one or two songs to play and discuss. After each

presentation, I asked the student groups one or two questions; most of these questions

were similar to the ones I would later ask in the focus group interview. In conducting the class and asking questions in this way, I added to the ecological validity of the responses.

Briggs (1986) indicated that such validity pertains to “the degree to which the

circumstances created by the researcher’s procedures match those of the everyday world

of the subjects” (p. 24). The students, then, saw the questioning protocol and process both

as an extension of their soundtrack presentations and consistent with the types of classroom discussions often held in the classroom context.

Interviews. According to Patton (2002), the main objective of interviews is to find

out from participants those things that are not easily observable. Internal facets of

participants, such as thoughts, feelings, and intentions, are not clearly discernible from

mere observation of their actions or interactions with others. In-depth interviewing can

reveal much about how participants “organize the world and the meanings they attach to

what goes on” (p. 341) in their life experiences. In order to capture the perspectives of the

participants, I conducted interviews with both the teacher and the students.

The first set of data included an interview with the teacher utilizing a general

interview guide approach (Patton, 2002) that centered on the planned curricula (see

interview protocol in Appendix E). The interview, as part of a qualitative design,

captured direction quotations about the teacher’s “personal perspectives and experiences”

(Patton, 2002, p. 40) in order to understand the classroom, especially course planning, in

all its complexity. The interview protocol focused on curricular decisions such as the

manner in which the course is organized (e.g. chronologically); the means by which

representative literary pieces are chosen; the overall objectives for the course; the types

of activities included or eliminated in the class; and the manner or means by which these

activities are evaluated. This interview lasted about 60 minutes and was audio-recorded.

It was subsequently transcribed and analyzed.

A second group of data included the interviews conducted with participating

students (see interview protocol in Appendix F). These interviews took place before

school, after school, and during lunch or library periods. They consisted of a one-on-one

dialogue between researcher and an individual student. These lasted approximately 30-45

minutes, depending on student availability and class scheduling. The interviews with the

students focused on how they perceived the overall structure in the classroom; how they

thought their teacher chose particular literary pieces and response activities; their

perception of the reasoning for such choices; their feelings about and understanding of

class discussions and activities; and the ability of these alternative response activities to encourage understanding of the text. These semi-structured interviews were kept informal and conversational so as to encourage student reflection (Charmaz, 2002 and to allow for the exploration of the specific artifacts created by the students.

Additionally, another student interview took the form of a group discussion or

focus group. The group discussions included the researcher and a small cluster of

students chosen because of their collaboration on a specific soundtrack. Blumer (1969 as

cited in Patton 2002) argued that shared meanings were created through human

interaction. Symbolic interactionism, a social-psychological approach, places significant

emphasis on the importance of meaning-making and interpretation as essential human

processes. In The Active Interview, Holstein and Gubrium (1995) emphasize that because

meaning is socially constituted, all knowledge is created from the action taken to obtain

it. Thus, in order to understand how the students perceived, interpreted, and understood the process of the soundtrack-making activity, it was necessary to conduct the interview

with the group members who collaborated in order to create it. A second interview with

the students in the form of a focus group also occurred after the musical soundtrack

activity was completed. Because the soundtracks were developed by small groups of

students rather than individual students, the second interview focused on the projects

themselves. Specifically, the students were asked questions regarding their approach to the project; the music chosen; the distribution of work in completing the project; a self- analysis of the product; and reactions to the grading process (see Appendix G).

Based on the belief that the meaning of things, in this case the product (the music soundtracks), are “handled and modified through an interpretive process,” (Patton, 2002, p.112), the investigation that focused on the soundtrack itself was conducted in a group setting. The focal group members were asked questions regarding their approach to the project and the music chosen; the distribution of work in completing the project; a self- analysis of the product; and reactions to their teacher’s grading process (see interview protocol in Appendix G). These interviews were audio-taped, transcribed, and analyzed.

Artifacts. Additionally, the completed alternative response activities of the participating students were collected and copied. The originals were returned to the students; the copies were kept for analysis. Thus, triangulation was achieved through teacher interviews, student interviews, focal group discussions, classroom observations, and an analysis of student artifacts.

Table 3.1. Data Sources

Informants Source Data obtained Focus Teacher Taped interview Transcripts of interviews curricular decision-making and planning; means by which literary pieces are chosen; overall objectives for the course; types of activities chosen or eliminated; evaluation of activities Students Taped interview Transcripts of interviews discernment of received classroom instruction; thinking about choice of literary pieces and response activities; perceptions of class discussions and activities; ability of activities to encourage understanding of the text Student Taped Transcripts of Self-examination of the focal group interviewing interviewing discussion student artifacts (i.e. music discussion soundtracks); how project was approached; music chosen; the distribution of work; and reactions to their teacher’s grading process. Students Completed Written, drawn, Understanding of literary response composed student text; analogical thinking; activities artifacts connection of classroom instruction and student comprehension or extension Observation of Field notes Types of discussions and class instruction; implemented instruction, class activities; literary discussion, and analyses occurring in activities classroom

Data Management and Analysis

According to Patton (2002), one of the most significant challenges of qualitative

analysis lies in “making sense of massive amounts of data” (p. 432). In order to

accomplish this feat, the researcher must organize the information, as well as reduce the

voluminous amounts of raw data by separating the trivial from the significant. In doing

so, the researcher can begin to identify preliminary patters and create a framework for

arranging and communicating whatever the data reveal.

Data Management

Thus, managing the vast amounts of data collected in this study was important.

Without organization, not only might data have been lost, but the process of analysis

would have been difficult and cumbersome. Each date of classroom observation, I took

field notes in on loose leaf paper that I later placed in two three-ring binders, one for each

class (the advanced placement class and the State Graduation Test recovery class). While

the students were aware of and interested in my presence, I did not want to make my

fieldnote-taking appear too formal. Upon returning home, these notes were then typed into word documents on my computer. In doing so, I was able to be reflective about what information had been gained from the day’s observation, consider what data I might need to gather during the next class visit, and begin preliminary analysis.

Patton (2002) indicated that the “fluid and emergent nature” of naturalistic inquiry

makes the line between data gathering and data analysis “far less absolute” (p. 436).

Patton further suggested that, even while in the field, ideas about the direction of analysis, the emergence of patterns, and the surfacing of themes can occur. By following the data wherever they might lead, the researcher can “deepen insights into and confirm

(or disconfirm) patterns” (p. 436) that seem to have appeared. Eventually, these word

documents were printed out and placed in the appropriate three ring binder for final

analysis.

Each interview that was conducted, both the individual interviews and the focal

group inquiries were transcribed directly into word documents on my computer. These,

too, were printed out and placed in a separate section of the correct binder. Following

transcription, these tapes were placed in a locked filing cabinet. Additionally, the students’ soundtracks were copied and the originals were returned to the students. These were also placed in one of the two binders, in a section separate from the field note and the interview transcription sections. The two resulting binders included all of the data

(observational field notes, interview transcriptions, and student soundtracks) that were

then used to construct the two case studies.

Data Analysis: Unique Case Orientation

The case study approach to qualitative data analysis represented a particular

manner of collecting, organizing, and analyzing data. It was expected that the case study

orientation of data analysis would capture “the complexities of a single case” (Stake,

1995, p. xi). As such, the case studies presented here are both holistic and context sensitive.

First, this naturalistic inquiry required a holistic perspective where, according to

Patton (2002), the entire phenomenon “is understood as a complex system that is more

than the sum of its parts” (p. 41). It focused on detailing the dynamics and the

interdependencies of both classroom structures that could not be viewed separately in any

meaningful way. Secondly, the case studies were context sensitive in that they placed the

findings in social and temporal contexts, making no attempt to generalize “across time

and space” (p. 41). Instead, the case studies emphasized comparative case analyses and

the discernment of patterns that might be transferable or malleable in other situations and

settings.

Content analysis. All of the data gathered from this study were analyzed with the

ultimate goal of discerning patterns and variations within and across the data sources.

This process is commonly referred to as content analysis (Patton, 2002, p. 452). Data

from the individual student interviews and observational field notes were initially analyzed using analytic induction, a process by which initial coding categories were discerned from patterns within the transcripts (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003; Strauss & Corbin,

1990). To identify such patterns, an analysis was conducted through multiple readings of

the data sources in order to familiarize myself with the content so that when categories

and variations emerged, they were easily identifiable. This first phase of data analysis

occurred prior to the completion of the students’ soundtracks and before I conducted the

second interview with the focal groups.

Based on the observational field notes and the student interviews, different patterns emerged for curricular organization of the two classes. The advanced placement class had five consistent classroom episodes (introduction, warm up, core, collaboration, and cool down) that were consistent, but flexible. The advanced placement students’ reception of the curriculum was clearly linked to the enactment of the five phases of the class schedule. The State Graduation Test recovery class, however, had only four classroom episodes: introduction, grammar/writing core, vocabulary/reading core, and cool down. These were rigid and time-constrained, yet the SGT students’ reception of the

curriculum was more consistent with the teacher’s planned curriculum than with the enacted curriculum.

Creating categories. After the students submitted their soundtracks and narratives, a second round of analysis occurred. The data gathered from the students’ musical response activities were analyzed based on categories that emerged through open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) during the pilot study. Specifically, the musical narratives produced by students were analyzed to see if and to what degree the transmediatory connections between the literary text and the musical text conformed to the seven types of associations that were derived through open coding during the pilot and were clearly linked to the specific response processes that have been previously described by other theorists (Beach, 1993; Beach & Marshall, 1990; Purves & Beach,

1972). These seven categories that emerged during the pilot and against which the new narratives were compared included the following: constructing, analyzing, engaging, intertextualizing, imaging, connecting, and evaluating/reflecting. Below is a description of each category:

• Constructing, as it was used in this study, was defined as looking beyond what

was written in the novel by creating an alternative world and entering into that

world. It included conceptualizing characters, events, and settings and making

them more abstract and figurative.

• Analyzing was “making sense” of text in a traditional sense; getting at the “right”

and accepted meaning of the text as in a typical literary analysis of a text..

• Engaging described the way in which students become emotionally involved,

empathizing or identifying with the characters or situations in the text.

• Intertextual responses were those in which the students connected new text to

knowledge and experience derived from previous texts, including those taken

from song lyrics, newspapers, magazines, and other novels.

• Imaging was defined as creating visual images. The students “saw” visually, in

the mind’s eye, characters, settings, and even events that are initially described in

print only.

• Connecting, as it was used here, was relating one’s autobiographical and

individual experience in order to make a personal connection to the text.

• Finally, evaluating/reflecting was the connection in which the student judged the

quality of his or her own experience during reading; it included reflecting upon

the importance of the reading transaction in one’s personal life.

Confirming patterns. The third round of data analysis occurred after the focus group interviews. The main objective of the third analysis was to understand the ways in which students thought about the utility of alternative response activities to negotiate individual and group meaning-making. I paid particular attention to how the students believed these activities provided opportunities for engagement with and comprehension of the literary text. I also attempted to identify students’ perception of these activities in the context of the ongoing curricular conversation concerning response to literature.

Finally, this third analysis allowed me to consider the resulting patterns and themes from the first two phases of data analysis deductively to confirm "the authenticity and appropriateness of the inductive content analysis" (Patton, 2002, p. 454).

Curriculum Theory in Data Analysis

The larger, social aspects of the English classroom were important when

interpreting the data obtained in this study. Due to the fact that classroom constructs

themselves, along with the pedagogical practices that are implemented within them, define what are acceptable or unacceptable ways of knowing (Gallas & Smagorinsky,

2002), the data were viewed and analyzed through a curricular lens.

Applebee (1994b) stated that successful English teachers are effective because

they “have a sense of what they are doing and why, and they create within their

classrooms a sense of coherence and direction that students recognize” (p. 46). In

establishing classrooms where there is a sense of purpose and direction, these teachers

establish a curricular conversation around which all literary pieces, classroom

discussions, and response activities are centered (Applebee, 2002). These English

educators guide students in meaningful conversations and implement engaging activities

that are supported by an appropriate amount of quality materials. These classroom

conversations are meaningful because they represent an ongoing discussion that is not

only continuous and cohesive, but coherent to the students so that they are encouraged to

participate in a discourse that is representative of a “living tradition of knowledge-in-

action” (Applebee, 1996, p. 5).

Curricular discussions that encourage students to enter into current and ongoing

conversations within the living traditions of disciplinary discourse are what Applebee

(1996) calls a curriculum of "knowledge-in-action." The traditions of knowledge-in- action are “open to analysis and change” (p. 17) because they are based on both knowing and doing that capitalizes on the concerns, interests, and understanding of its participants.

A curriculum in which students are drawn into domains of culturally significant

conversation is inherently “lively” and engaging, and such instruction creates spaces for

students to explore, investigate, and consider all manner of interpretive possibility

(Applebee, 1997).

Such a curriculum stands in contrast with many curricula that present

"knowledge-out-of-context" for students to learn about. A decontextualized curriculum

“may enable students to do well on multiple choice items…[but] it does not enable them

to enter on their own into our vital academic traditions of knowing and doing” (Applebee,

1996, p. 33). Curriculum such as this involves "specialized content (knowing), ignoring

the discourse conventions that govern participation (doing)" (Applebee, 1996, p. 30). The

content in such a curriculum does not encourage student participation or appeal to the

development of further conversation because it is “dead as well as deadly, certain to bring the curricular conversation to a halt rather than leading it forward” (Applebee, 1994b, p.

47). Often, students in such a curriculum are encouraged only insofar as they are able to arrive at predetermined and specific responses to close-ended questions.

Study Timeline

This project was completed in one academic year. Data collection and preliminary

data analysis occurred over the course of the first semester in the 2006-2007 school year

(see Table 3.2). Final data analysis was completed during the second half of the 2006-

2007 academic year. The report was started during the second semester of the school year and continued through the summer of 2007.

Table 3.2 Data Collection and Analysis Timeline

Dates Data Collected Analysis Undertaken 8/29/06 Observational field notes Teacher interview 9/5/06 Observational field notes Individual student interviews 9/12/06 Observational field notes Individual student interviews 9/19/06 Observational field notes Individual student interviews 9/26/06 Observational field notes First phase initiated 10/10/06 Observational field notes First phase continued 10/24/06 Observational field notes First phase continued SGT soundtracks collected Second phase initiated 11/7/06 Observational field notes First and second phase Focal group interviews (SGT) continued 11/14/06 Observational field notes First and second phase Focal group interview (SGT) continued 11/28/06 Observational field notes First and second phase Focal group interview (SGT) continued 12/5/06 Observational field notes First and second phase continued 12/14/06 Observational field notes First and second phase continued 1/3/07 Observational field notes First and second phase Honors soundtracks collected continued 1/4/07 Observational field notes First and second phase Focal group interviews (Honors) continued 1/10/07 Observational field notes First and second phase Focal group interviews (Honors) continued Third phase initiated

Trustworthiness

According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), a valid inquiry conducted through

qualitative analysis addresses four areas: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Credibility is the extent to which the representations of the study

participants’ realities (i.e. the teacher’s and students’) are reflected in my depiction of

those realities. Transferability is the extent to which the findings of my study are

applicable to other contexts. Dependability provides the proof that the results of my study

are replicable. Confirmability is that evidence that assured that the findings are not based

on my biases as the primary researcher.

Credibility

As the primary researcher, I was concerned about making certain that I accurately

and completely represented the perspectives and perceptions of the teacher and students

who agreed to participate in my study. I accomplished this task, first and foremost, by

maintaining a regular schedule that spanned an entire academic semester, resulting in a total of fifteen class observations. Due to this protracted exposure to the classroom, I was able to view the ever-changing aspects of class dynamics and the evolving relationships between Mrs. Stanford and her students and among the students themselves. Because I typed my field notes soon after the observations, I was able to reflect on the information had been gained that day. A preliminary analysis was initiated at that time, as I considered emerging categories and planned for the next class visit. During this constant process of considering patterns, choosing some themes and discarding others, and following the directions the data were leading, I was ever mindful of the need to “reveal nuances and subtleties” (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2003, p. 513) in the dynamics of the classroom and in the teacher’s and students’ perceptions of that classroom.

I was also able to address credibility by achieving triangulation through the

collection of information from a variety of sources: teacher interviews, student

interviews, focal group discussions, classroom observations, and student artifacts. In

obtaining diverse data, I was able to elicit differing constructions of reality and a range of

perspectives that allowed me to present a multifaceted and inclusive view of the

classroom context.

Transferability

My research, because it was rooted in a qualitative paradigm, did not consider the

generalizability of its findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Instead, this naturalistic inquiry

looked at the specific contexts in which the events and situations occurred in order that those considering this study would be able to make judgments concerning its applicability in other contexts. In order to accomplish this, I set about collecting detailed descriptions and the direct quotations of the participants so that I was able to report the data in ways that were “rich in description” (Bogdan & Biklen, p. 2) in order to both capture and reflect the participants’ personal perspectives and experiences.

I was also able to obtain transferability through purposeful sampling (Patton,

2002). Mrs. Stanford, the teacher participant in my study, consistently planned for and

implemented alternative reader response activities in her classroom. I sought to maximize

the information that could be gleaned from her classroom planning and enactment by

focusing on two different contexts and two separate curricula—that of the advanced

placement program as well as the State Graduation Test course.

Dependability

My research also provided evidence of dependability by utilizing an overlap

method. The overlap methodology represented triangulation, as indicated above. In

determining the credibility of my study, I have concurrently demonstrated that, should the

study be replicated with the similar participants in similar contexts, the findings would be repeated.

Confirmability

My biases as a researcher were not, at first, apparent to me. At the outset of this

study, I was convinced that that I had no vested interest in the outcome of the study.

While I had purposefully chosen Mrs. Stanford based on her implementation of a variety of response activities in the classroom, I did not initially recognize my desire to see these

activities be “successful” with the students and believed that I was a truly objective

observer.

As I monitored Mrs. Stanford’s classroom week after week, however, I grew

increasingly certain that her teaching strategies and instructional methods were

“successful.” My definition of “success” was based on my observation of increased

student involvement, active engagement, and the students’ apparent enjoyment of the

response activities. It was also rooted in the results of the pilot study, which appeared to

indicate that the lower readers made associations and produced soundtracks that were

similar to those created by the higher readers.

During the second round of data analysis, when I began to look critically at the

clear differences in the soundtracks, I searched for the reason for the dissimilar results

from the pilot study. I began to realize that the connections the students made to the text

were rooted in the curricular conversations in which the response activity was placed. I

began to understand that the perceived “success” of the activities had less to do with the

type and utilization of response activities and more to do with the curricular contexts in

which they were placed and the curricular conversations that supported them. This led me

to think more critically about the classroom discourse, the classroom routine, and the

course design, and I began to see these as fundamentally and intrinsically linked to the

students’ ability to engage in various types of responses to the literature. This will be

discussed more fully in Chapter Six, when I explore the practical and pedagogical

implications of this study.

While I did have opportunity during the second analysis phase to present to the students some of my preliminary findings, complete member checking with all of the students and the teacher did not occur during the scope of this study.

Conclusion

This qualitative study utilized a case study approach. The data included a teacher

interview, individual student and focus group interviews, observational field notes, and

student artifacts. The data were collected and organized as broad and systematic studies

of two classes—an eleventh grade advanced placement/honors class and combined class

of eleventh and twelfth grade students in a State Graduation Test recovery class. Data

from the interviews and observational field notes were analyzed using analytic induction

(Bogdan & Biklen, 2003; Strauss & Corbin, 1990); data gathered from the students’ soundtracks and narratives were analyzed based on categories that emerged through open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) during the pilot study. A third phase of deductive data analysis was utilized in order to confirm the emergence of patterns.

The findings of this study are presented in the next two chapters. In Chapter Four,

I will consider the classroom design and curricular conversations as a basis for understanding the planned, enacted, and received curricula. In Chapter Five, I will present the student-created literary soundtracks and narratives, as well as the ways in which the students’ artifacts reflect their perceptions and understanding of the curricular conversations.

Chapter Four

I think I should have no other mortal wants if I could always have plenty of music. It seems to infuse strength into my limbs and ideas into my brain. Life seems to go on without effort when I am filled with music. --George Eliot

Introduction

In order to understand the curricular conversations that took place in the

classroom and their influence on the students’ understanding of the assignment, it is

necessary to explore the settings in which these took place. Examining the learning

context and the structure of communication in the classroom provided a framework for

comprehending how the students perceived the conversational domains, as well as the

ways in which the students interpreted their roles as meaning-makers during the

soundtrack making process. This chapter briefly reviews the school setting before taking

an in-depth look at the classroom designs of both the honors and State Graduation Test

recovery courses. I consider the curriculum at three levels (planned, enacted, and

received) for both classes, typifying the differences and similarities between them.

The School Structure

The secondary school in this study utilized a “block” system. The block system

consisted of a four-bell day in which the classes lasted twice as long as a more traditional

class—approximately 90-95 minutes. The first four courses were taken for one full

semester, and a second set of four classes was taken for the remainder of the year. School

representatives asserted that, due to the longer class periods, teachers had more opportunities and the extended time necessary to use texts, materials, speakers, and activities that would have been difficult to employ in a traditional classroom setting.

Thus, educators at this school were both encouraged and expected to utilize a variety of

resources in their content areas. In this way, Mrs. Stanford [a pseudonym], the teacher in

this study, was supported as she planned for variety of activities, including those that

involved the fine arts, in her English language arts classes.

The Classroom Context

An important element of utilizing transmediatory activities such as the soundtrack-making and narrative-writing was designing a classroom that was supportive of such activity. In order for students to value response activities as a way to construct meaning, consistency needed to be maintained among the planned, enacted, and received curricula. Curriculum, in a more traditional setting of seven-bell days and distinct disciplinary boundaries, is traditionally defined as a program of learning that leads to a certificate of completion. In this case, that certificate would be a high school diploma that verified an accumulation of the prescribed number of completed credits, including both required courses and electives.

This customary definition of curriculum, however, is not consistent with the

underlying philosophy of the four-bell block system, as it fails to highlight the ability of

and opportunity for the educator to choose some texts, materials, and activities over

others. Curriculum, as it is defined in this study, is better represented as a conversation

(Applebee, 1996) and includes the sense of purpose and direction established by the

teacher in both planning and enactment (Applebee, 1994, 2002). It incorporates all of the

introductory activities, literary pieces, classroom discussions, and response activities

planned. Curriculum conceived in this way also includes Applebee’s (1996) concept of

“knowledge-in-action,” that describes those curricular conversations where students were

encouraged to engage in current, shifting, and ongoing discussions within the living

traditions of disciplinary discourse. It is both the knowing and doing of a discipline; as

such, it is situated in opposition to those classroom discourses that focus only on learning

about something. Applebee calls this “knowledge-out-of-context” because it represents

information introduced outside of the living disciplinary contexts that gives the

information meaning and value.

Classroom Description

The classroom itself was relatively large, yet modest (see Figure 4.1). It contained

30 student desks, arranged in a horseshoe so that all students could see one another, as

well as the teacher. While there was a teacher’s desk and a small podium at the front of

the room, Mrs. Stanford rarely used them. During most of the lectures and class

discussions, she navigated through the U of the horseshoe, as well as behind and around

desks, if there was room. There were large bookshelves against one wall that contained

two sets of basal readers, instructional grammar books, dictionaries, and thesauri. There

were also six computers in the classroom, organized against another wall. Few posters or

decorative touches were present in the classroom, although there were plants placed around the room and a large container of mints on the teacher’s desk to which the students were allowed to help themselves as they pleased.

Figure 4.1 Classroom Design

DOOR

podium bookshelves

Tchr desk

computers

If any partnered or small group activities were done, the students simply

rearranged the desks to suit their needs and then reassembled them in the horseshoe when they were finished. The computers were on small rolling computer tables, but could not be moved a great distance from their power source and modems. Students working cooperatively on one computer would bring extra chairs from the desks to the computer in order to be in close proximity to the computer and to one another. During the class periods that were designated for working on the soundtrack, the teacher did allow two groups at a time to go out in the hall and use portable CD players so that they would not interrupt those working quietly within the classroom.

Holding a Curricular Conversation

The curricula in the two classrooms were studied at three levels: the planned, the

enacted, and the received. Each of these levels will be explored in detail for both the

honors/advanced placement and the State Graduation Test recovery classrooms. I will not, however, explicate these in order from conceptualization (planned) to the classroom

performance (enacted) to the eventual perception of curricula by the students (received),

as is customary. Instead, I will discuss the planned and the received curricula first in

order to ascertain the similarities and differences between them. I will then talk about the

enacted curriculum as a means for exploring the consistencies and inconsistencies

between the planned and the received curricula.

Planned Curriculum: Honors Class

The planned curriculum includes all of the materials and texts chosen, along with

the methods and activities selected by the teacher that are intended for classroom

teaching (Applebee, 1996). The planned curriculum is the aspect of curriculum most

often recognizable to educators because it includes the standards, lesson planning, and

sequencing of skills and materials that occur “behind the scenes” before class instruction

begins. In the following section, I explore five areas of the planned curriculum including:

the organization of the course, the text, the course objectives, the classroom activities,

and means of student assessment.

Course organization. From the beginning of the study, it became apparent that

Mrs. Stanford had not only carefully planned, but had also clearly articulated, both by my observation and the students’ admission, the overall organization of the advanced/honors

English class to the students. Mrs. Stanford explained how her advanced English class

was organized:

Although I focus on themes heavily when teaching literature, I don’t use thematic

units. I organize my course chronologically, setting each piece in its correct

historical context and focusing heavily on the characteristics of the literary

movements…I also tell my students that if they examine what is going on in

history, art, and music at the time, they can see the whole picture.

She stated that her decision to organize the course chronologically was influenced

by the belief that when “examining movements [chronologically], one can see that they

are just usually a continuation of the movement before it or a reaction against it.” She

further justified her choice of course organization by stating that she felt it “makes sense”

this way, both to her and to the students. She pointed to the fact that the art and music

activities are a better “fit” when considered in light of literary historical context, than if

the course was arranged in some other manner. Mrs. Stanford argued that, given her

chronological plan for the course, she would be able to draw upon the musical

compositions created during a particular period or emphasize the kind of art works being

generated with a chronological framework in place.

Choosing texts. Mrs. Stanford then explained how she picked literary pieces to

include as representative of those periods. She stated that she chose pieces that “illustrate clear characteristics of the movements,” as well as those with “overall literary merit.”

Mrs. Stanford found “overall literary merit,” however, difficult to define and declined to explain her thinking about this, except to state that she felt that there were “established texts” that it was assumed the students would know before entering college. She further

indicated that these were texts that modeled certain literary techniques she was expected

to teach. Mrs. Stanford cited the fact that it was important to “hit the state standards,” but

admitted that it was equally important to her that students had exposure to “a survey of

American literature” similar, in many aspects, to the kinds of literature courses she “took

in college in English.” Mrs. Stanford stated that she also tried to select pieces “that will

appeal to [her] audience,” and she was careful to consider whether or not “the students

will be responsive” when looking at texts for classroom use. As a result, while she drew

from a list that was pre-approved by her district, she tried to be diligent about “matching”

the texts to the students she was currently teaching, as well as those texts that lend

themselves to “activities that [she] can do.” Thus, from year to year, the texts she used

varied, and were rarely listed (or listed tentatively) on her syllabus.

Course objectives. Mrs. Stanford had no trouble articulating her overall objectives

for the advanced placement class, and these were many. She expressed a desire for her

students to understand the historical and cultural factors that influenced literary

movements and the literature produced in those periods. She wanted the students to

“realize that…an author’s biography is oftentimes an invaluable tool when trying to

understand the full meaning of a text.” She stated that encouraging students to write, especially in “crafting authentic voices” for writing, was important. She wanted to help students “develop polished, prepared speeches” and become more comfortable speaking

in public forums. She indicated that she valued writing and speaking in ways that are

“grammatically correct,” although she felt that teaching grammar was more than identifying parts of speech. In her explanation, she emphasized that it was more important to her that the students apply grammar in their own speaking and writing than

to simply be able to pick the parts of speech out of sentence or complete grammar

worksheets. She further indicated that she did not want the students to “grow comfortable

and complacent” by “parroting back” information that has been discussed in class.

Rather, she wanted them to “actively think and create.” She concluded by saying that she could “go on for hours, but essentially I want them to…apply what they learn in here to their lives out there!”

Utilizing activities. Mrs. Stanford indicated that she uses, and has used in the past,

a wide range of fine arts activities in her English language arts classes for honors and

advanced placement students. These included but were not limited to Reader’s Theater,

spontaneous re-enactments of “pivotal scenes,” visual predicting activities, and

storyboards (Wilhelm, 1997). She stated that she introduced music from the various

periods, and did a great deal of creative writing of various genres.

While she admitted that her activity choices may “depend on what [her] teaching points are or what the content of the lesson is,” she also recognized that she believed activities should be “enriching.” Specifically, Mrs. Stanford said:

I want the activity to be memorable…to give students the “ah-ha” feeling. I try to

appeal to different learning styles and to create a variety of activities. Essentially,

I want them to connect with literature and writing and most importantly, to apply

it to their lives.

According to Mrs. Stanford, the value of these activities as part of classroom

instruction should not be underestimated. She felt that such activities, in the context of

her English language arts courses, improved student thinking about the literary pieces in a

variety of ways. She stated that they “definitely add to the curriculum” by helping

students “connect with the text.” Unlike more predictable lecture formats, where students

have but one task to complete (e.g., taking notes), students engaged in a meaningful

activity “aren’t passively absorbing, they are actively creating.” Mrs. Stanford pointed to

the fact that students were not just listening, as they often do during transmission-oriented

instruction, but instead they “must apply knowledge” during an activity that is

transactional in nature. An activity forced them “to work” with one another, converse

with the teacher, and engage with the text. Mrs. Stanford indicated that, in the final

analysis, such activities made the “material and lesson more memorable and will have a

more likely chance of making a difference in students’ lives.”

This educator was concerned by the fact that there were few opportunities for

cross-curricular work, not only with this class, but in the secondary school in general.

Mrs. Stanford indicated that she “would love to have the art and music departments

involved more.” She envisioned the school jazz band from the music department coming

to play in a “party environment” during the unit on Gatsby, complete with sparkling juice for champagne, hors d’oeuvres, and students in appropriate period dress. Another activity

that had not yet come to fruition for Mrs. Stanford was the planting of an herb garden for

the Transcendentalism literary period. She felt that such an “outdoorsy” event could

result in a cooking project with the home economics department.

Assessment. The last part of planning that was addressed was assessment. When it was pointed out that “projects” and “activities” were not included in the syllabus

designed for this course (see Appendix H), Mrs. Stanford responded by saying that she

doesn’t usually say “project,” but rather,

I say activity, and depending on the amount of work involved I may take it as a

homework grade, quiz grade, test grade, or I may not take it for a grade at all.

Sometimes I just want to do an activity so it enriches the experience. I don’t feel

everything needs to be assessed. I certainly don’t assess every assignment I give

them or every discussion we have. I don’t want it to be stressful either. These

activities should be fun!

Mrs. Stanford had, according to her self-report, carefully planned many elements

of the English III advanced class. These included but were not limited to overall course

structure and policies, course objectives, selection of literary texts, activity and project choices, and assessment procedures. The question remained whether or not the students had understood and received the curriculum in a way that was consistent with what had been developed.

Received Curriculum: Honors Students

The received curriculum centered on the students’ perception and understanding

of the planned curriculum. What the student actually perceives in the classroom may or

may not be consistent with either the planned or enacted curricula. In the case of the

honors students, their understanding of the course was derived more from the enacted

curriculum than from the planned curriculum.

In the honors class, there were 23 advanced placement students. The more

outspoken members of the group included Kiani, Lindy, and Tom. Kiani and Lindy were

in several advanced placement classes, including English, American history, and

chemistry. They were members of the National Honor Society, and both participated in the school’s competitive show choir. Tom, too, was a member of the National Honor

Society, and he was in an advanced placement math class. Tom was a member of the school’s tennis team, and, as a guitarist, he stated that he was putting together a “band” with two friends who played bass and drums.

Course organization and objectives. Due to Mrs. Stanford’s careful planning and explicit articulation of the course’s overall organization for the advanced/honors English class, it was no surprise that the students’ understandings of the classroom set-up and goals were consistent with the plan and purpose the teacher wanted the students to identify. When the students were asked how they believed the advanced English class was organized, students confidently responded that Mrs. Stanford did so “by theme and chronologically.” Students indicated that they had a sense of the semester because the teacher designed a clear course syllabus and prepared them for upcoming lessons by showing how “the next part in literary history was a continuation of or reaction against” the current literary movement. The students stated that sometimes the “transitions” from one period to the next were different, depending on what “activities she [Mrs. Stanford] had in mind,” but the students were almost always clear about what was “coming up” in the next instructional week.

Again, the students were asked what they felt were Mrs. Stanford’s overall goals for the English course. Lindy reported that Mrs. Stanford “wants to further inform us of

English writers.” Other students felt that the teacher “wanted us to learn how to look deeper into poems, short stories, and novels we read.” Asked to clarify what “looking deeper” meant, students indicated that Mrs. Stanford wanted students to “think” about the texts they read “so we can get a better understanding on those sorts of things later in life if we set out on our own.”

When asked what being “on your own” meant, students explained that eventually

they would leave this class and would need to be prepared for more academics where the

teacher, unlike Mrs. Stanford, may or may not be willing to help them examine a text.

They indicated that this course was a preparation not only for their next and final year of

advanced placement study, but also the eventual honors examination they would take for possible college credit. Additionally, the students mentioned that “analyzing pieces” will

be what they are “required to do in the English courses” they would be taking in college.

It was interesting to note that none of the students interviewed responded by indicating that being “on your own” might mean independent reading at home or for pleasure in a non-educational context, a goal Mrs. Stanford had expressed when she indicated that the

students should apply their classroom learning to their own lives.

Choosing texts and utilizing activities. Students were less certain regarding how

they believed Mrs. Stanford chose literary pieces for inclusion in the course. Many

students were convinced that their teacher had “read almost, if not all the books” they had

in their classroom. Therefore, they were hesitant to explain what criteria Mrs. Stanford

might have had in choosing particular texts over others. Several students referred to the syllabus and indicated that perhaps the author, as part of the literary movement, might have been a determining factor. Still others felt that Mrs. Stanford tried to “correspond the book” to its historical context and use it as “some sort of a reference” for literary elements she would be trying to explain—foreshadowing, imagery, and symbolism were the examples provided by the students.

The students had even less of an idea of the manner in which Mrs. Stanford

planned and implemented activities. When questioned about how they believed Mrs.

Stanford decided upon the activities that would be done in the class, practically none of

the students had suggestions to offer. John, a football player and member of the

photography club who wanted to eventually work on the yearbook committee, said, “I

am not really sure how she does this, but I am sure that she tries to find what she thinks

would be the best way of learning what is going on.” Like John, most of the students felt

that “analyzing texts with class discussions” was the “activity” preferred by their teacher.

They also asserted that, even though participation only constituted 10% of their final

grade “on paper,” they felt that their involvement in class discourse actually weighed

more heavily on their grade than their teacher indicated or admitted.

While students expressed pleasure at doing the fine arts activities, none of the

students interviewed seemed to be able to articulate a general objective of what they were

supposed to be learning from the projects. Students had vague impressions of the

teacher’s purpose, and expressed these as “being introduced” to a text, “thinking more deeply” about a piece, “having fun” with a reading, and “experiencing something different than normal class discussions where we [analyze] a book or story.” The students also gave examples of specific things they had done in the class and suggested what the

purpose of those particular activities might have been.

Assessment. When asked about assessment, students were extremely reticent to

discuss the teacher’s system for grading. Most interview participants referred me back to the syllabus (see Appendix H) where Mrs. Stanford had explained the grading system based on percentages in six categories: writing portfolio (25%), tests (20%), the final exam (20%), quizzes (15%), homework (10%), and classroom participation (10%).

Several students stated that they felt the participation grade was probably “not accurate,”

because their teacher “values our participation.” Kiani indicated that “Mrs. Stanford is always getting after us to talk in class. Even though some people don’t like to talk, she might even call on them anyway.” Most of the students felt that the dialogue in class was not just for assessment purposes, however. They indicated that the teacher used the classroom discussion as a way to help them explore the text and guide their thinking so that they would arrive at “a good interpretation” of the story. Most of the students perceived the question of “assessment” as related to “grades,” and informed me that Mrs.

Stanford often cautioned them about the private nature of one’s grades. None of the students interviewed seemed to view assessment as a catalyst for future learning, but rather as something fixed, inflexible, and final.

While the students understood the importance of writing for the purpose of taking the advanced placement test their senior year, students believed that too much emphasis was placed on learning about and developing strategies for the “five-paragraph essay.”

Several students complained about completing “all those rewrites” because it was “a drag.” The students admitted, however, that because the “showcase portfolio” was a required school outcome of the course and its contents were sent outside of the building for a final evaluation, Mrs. Stanford “probably has little to do with” all of the writing they were expected to complete. The students also acknowledged that the verbal and written feedback that Mrs. Stanford provided on their writing was both “useful” and “fair,” and, as a result, most students felt that their writing had improved considerably over the course of the semester.

Students from the advanced placement class did not complain about most of the formal assessments such as tests and quizzes, stating that the class discussion “usually

100

prepared” them for those evaluations. They also indicated that they felt their teacher provided adequate notice for formal assessments and that the tests themselves were

“fair.” When attempting to define “fair,” the students argued that evaluations of their

performance were reasonable when they reflected on what they had learned in class and

when the teacher had adequately and accurately represented what would be on the test or

quiz.

The students, however, expressed concern about the fact that the final exam was

comprehensive, encompassing an entire semester’s work in vocabulary, grammar, literary

movements, writing genres, and analysis of literary texts that had been read. These

students pointed to the fact that few classes had cumulative exams and that the music

soundtrack due date, placed in such close proximity to the date of final exam, prevented

them from presenting their best efforts on one or both of the assignments.

Classroom Enactment: Honors class

The enacted curriculum is the planned curriculum as it was implemented—the

utilization of materials, texts, methods, activities, and assessments in the classroom as it

occurs and unfolds (Applebee, 1996). Because teachers often capitalize on teachable

moments or discover that plans will not work, the planned curriculum is not necessarily a

predictor of what actually occurs.

Capturing the vibrant ebb and flow of classroom activity in words was a daunting task. My objective here was two-fold: 1) to provide a clear and accurate representation of classroom dynamics; and 2) to do justice to the students and teacher that conducted those dynamics by giving them a voice in my writing.

101

Curricular conversations. The weekly class observations I made throughout the

semester enabled me to see the evolution of the course and the changing relationships

between the teacher and the students, as well as understand the connections between and

among the students in the advanced/honors class. It helped me to appreciate the rhythm

of the class. Early in the semester, the routine for the advanced placement English block was established. The schedule for the day was relatively consistent, regardless of the

content being covered. I eventually categorized and labeled these classroom episodes as

follows: the introduction, the warm up, the core, the collaboration, and the cool down. In

order to illustrate the nature of these classroom phases, I have included after a brief

explanation of each episode.

Approximately the first five to seven minutes of each class meeting were set aside

as an introduction. This time was used for greetings and exchanges, the collection of

homework, and a brief discussion of the overall plan for the day. It was quickly followed

by a 15-20 minute warm up in which the teacher reviewed grammar rules and skills or

vocabulary words and exercises. In some cases, this time was used as an opportunity to

grade grammar or vocabulary homework that was not collected for a grade during the

introduction period. Approximately every four to five weeks, the warm up time was used

for an oral review to prepare for an upcoming grammar or vocabulary test.

The warm up period was usually followed by the heart of the plan for the day, the

core. In most instances, this involved an analysis of the literary piece that had been assigned as reading homework. The analysis was often done as a whole class discussion, especially in the beginning of the academic year. As the semester progressed, however, more work was done in partners or small groups, after which the entire class would come

102

together and share their thinking about the text. Occasionally, the period was extended so

that both the reading of the text and the subsequent analysis could be completed during

class time. The core was approximately 35-45 minutes, and was usually followed by a

collaborative activity.

While there were times when the collaboration period involved fine arts activities

and opportunities for small groups of students to work together, the collaboration often

utilized a second text as a reading extension or required writing activities of various

genres. This phase of the class structure lasted anywhere from 20-45 minutes, depending

on the amount of time needed to complete the activity and the percentage of class time that had been consumed during the previous four phases.

Following the collaboration, the teacher briefly pulled the class together as a whole, reviewed homework assignments, discussed a tentative plan for the following day,

and dismissed students. This cool down period could be cut short because the collaboration took longer than anticipated or could be extended when the teacher wanted

an opportunity to discuss the collaborative activity or give directions for future

assignments.

It must be emphasized that these classroom episodes, though they were

maintained consistently during my observations of the classroom, did not adhere to strict

time guidelines. There was flexibility in the amount of time dedicated to each, depending

on the students’ needs and interests, Mrs. Stanford’s objectives, the nature of the

collaborative activities, the length of the literary pieces, and the types of things occurring

in the school that interrupted or affected the schedule of the day (e.g., field trips for other

courses, computer room scheduling, awards assemblies, pep rallies, etc.).

103

Classroom Enactment: An Illustrative Example

In order to exemplify these five phases of the class structure, the course of one class period is depicted below. The brief descriptions of the classroom episodes indicated above met my first purpose by clearly representing classroom routine and movement.

However, these explanations do not meet my second purpose because they are unable to capture the essence of the discussions in which the teacher and students were engaged. In looking closely at the kinds of dialogue occurring in the classroom, it is possible to see the ways in which the enacted curriculum might be a factor in the disconnect between the planned and received curricula. Additionally, by utilizing this example of a class period, taken from field notes for August 29, 2006, the voices of the teacher and the students are more accurately illustrated. While any of the observational dates would have provided examples of these five phases, this particular date was the first scheduled observation and further demonstrated how early in the academic year such organization in classroom structure and discourse occurred. I have added labels in order to indicate transitions.

Introduction. The students arrived in the classroom from 9:23 until 9:28. The bell rang at 9:28, and all students were in their seats. Many had their heads on the desks.

Some were yawning. The following exchange occurred:

Teacher: You guys awake?

Student 1: I had to take a shower in the pitch black.

Teacher: Why?

Student 1: The electric had been out most of the night and

this morning at my house.

Student 2: Yeah, my house too.

104

Teacher: Goodness! We had a storm, too, but no electrical

problems. How did you know what you were doing?

(Students laugh.)

Student 1: Guess we’ve done it enough times.

Student 2: Yeah, but I almost didn’t get to school on time.

Teacher: Ok, well, you’re here now. I want your “round” poems

from homework last night, please.

(Students begin handing in their poems.)

Teacher: Today we’re going to go over some simple grammar. It should all

be a review, at least for most of you. Then we’re going to analyze

a poem. But before we do that, I want to pass out and explain this

“Get of out Jail Free” pass.

Mrs. Stanford handed out the pass and explained that it could be used for a missing assignment any time during the first quarter. The teacher then explained that the students would receive another pass the second quarter. She emphasized that the pass

would keep them from receiving disciplinary action or a deduction of points on the

assignment, but that the assignment itself would have to be turned in the next day if the

students wanted to get a grade for it instead of losing points. Once the homework was

collected, paper clipped, and placed on her desk, there was a transition into the warm up

phase.

Warm up. The teacher asked the students to get the grammar books off of the

shelves, open them, and turn to a specific page. There was a brief lull while the students

complied. Once students were in their seats, the teacher began. The routine was

105

apparently familiar, even at this early stage in the academic year. The students did not

raise their hands and wait to be called. Instead, answers were offered voluntarily and

quickly, with little, if any, direct feedback from the teacher.

Teacher: Tell me what a noun is.

Student 3: person, place, thing

Teacher: One more thing to add?

Student 4: idea

Teacher: Okay. Now, what is a collective noun? (pause) Don’t know? Take

a look in your book. (pause)

Student 4: group?

Teacher: Right—a collection of things. What about a concrete versus an

abstract noun? (pause)

Student 5: a feeling?

Teacher: yeah….what else? Someone read it.

Student: (looking, but not reading verbatim) not something you can touch

or feel.

The dialogue continued this way, covering, in a short time, a vast amount of material, including compound nouns, pronouns, antecedents, reflexive pronouns, verb tenses, and transitive and intransitive verbs. The teacher then told the students they had done a nice job, requested that they put their grammar books away, and began distributing copies of a poem for the students to read.

Core. The core began at approximately 9:57 am. The teacher instructed the

students to get into partners, read the poem silently to themselves, and then work together

106

to understand what the poem meant. The teacher explained that the poem was eight stanzas long and the students may not get completely finished analyzing the poem before they moved into a large group discussion. She explained that the copy belonged to the students and encouraged them to write on it by circling, underlining, and highlighting, as they deemed necessary. She suggested that the students should “break down the poem, stanza by stanza,” feeling free to consult their notes on poetry analysis. Because I was unable to consecutively watch and listen to all of the partner groups, I focused on the two female students in front of me.

This section is an excerpt from the beginning of their exchange:

Student 1: Line 41…what is that word?

Student 2: I swear I’ve heard that first line somewhere before.

Student 1: Look up that word—ir-re-par-able—will ya?

(The second student looked for the word in a small pocket dictionary.)

Student 2: “irreparable—not able to be fixed; reparable: capable of being

repaired”

Student 1: Why is “Consort” and “Women” capitalized?

Student 2: Maybe that’s a certain group of women or whatever.

(Teacher approaches the partners.)

Teacher: What is the art of rhetoric? We talked about that yesterday.

Student 2: persuasion

Teacher: Good…so what does that line mean about the schoolboy and

rhetorical?

Student 2: You wouldn’t think that a small boy would be able to persuade with

107

his words.

Teacher: Good. Now look at the Muses. What did we say the Muses handed

out?

Student 2: creative powers

Teacher: Right. What do you think that line means?

Student 2: She feels she can’t do something because she’s a woman. She’s

focused on being a woman and doesn’t think she can write because

of it.

Teacher: How do you know it’s about being a woman? What word in the text

tells you that?

Student 2: “Nature”

Teacher: That’s right. Nature made her a woman. Nice work.

Following this exchange, the teacher walked away, and the two students continued working from the point in the poem at which the teacher had left them. There were two things significant in this exchange. First of all, the guidance the teacher provided focused on a different aspect of the poem than that on which the students were currently working. The students had initiated their analysis by focusing on areas of personal concern or interest, e.g. the definition of an unknown word and the unanticipated capitalization of common nouns. Once the teacher joined the group, however, the analysis shifted to another part of the poem, and the students were referred back to information discussed during prior lectures. This was important to note because it exemplified one of the ways in which the teacher’s planned curriculum was not evidenced in the enacted curriculum. As such, scenarios such as this explained why the

108

students’ understanding of the received curriculum was not consistent with the teacher’s planned curriculum.

Secondly, once the teacher began interacting with the partners, the first student was essentially excluded from the conversation. Because the second student was able to articulate the answers to the teacher’s questions more quickly than her partner, the first student was left to be an observer, rather than a participant, of the analytical exchange.

The teacher, by conducting the same type of rapid fire question-and-answer format with the partners that she used with the whole class, did not allow these two students to experience the type of personal engagement with the text that she believed she was encouraging. This is further evidenced by the fact that, once the teacher moved away from the female partners, they picked up the analysis where the teacher had led them, not where they had originally shown a connection to or an interest in the text.

At approximately 10:15, the small group analysis ended. The teacher requested that the students move their desks back into the original places, and the large group discussion commenced immediately. The teacher moved briefly to the podium, where her notes were.

Teacher: Somebody summarize the poet’s overall message.

Student 1: Pretty much it’s about being a woman. Doesn’t believe she can

write.

Teacher: Good. Someone give me the overall tone or attitude of the poem.

Student 5: She can try but men can get it easier because if she does it, she’s

wrong.

Student 2: disappointed

109

Student 3: In the beginning, she’s humble. But it changes. She gets angry.

Student 1: In the beginning she’s sarcastic. Then mad. Then pessimistic.

Teacher: Ok. Where does the change or shift occur? Where in the poem?

Student 4: Around the fourth stanza, between lines 24 and 25.

Teacher: Yes, this poem is definitely divided. (reads stanza 1 aloud) What

clues helped you figure out the meaning of this stanza? Whose lines

are the “obscure” ones?

Student 6: hers

Teacher: Whose words have worth? Who is “their”?

Student 7: The men who write. Her lines are different than theirs.

Teacher: (reads stanza two aloud) Who are the Muses? We talked about them

yesterday.

Student 2: They are women who hand out creativity.

Teacher: Read the part about the Muses. How does she feel about them?

Student 1: I feel like she’s upset. She’s holding a grudge. It’s their fault that I

can’t write.

Teacher: Good. (reads stanza three). What is she saying? Someone paraphrase.

Student 9: She doesn’t have the creativity.

Teacher: Good. Why is it “irreparable”? Use words from the text.

Student 4: She can’t help she’s a woman. That can’t be fixed.

The analysis of the poem continued this way, as the teacher read each stanza aloud, posed leading questions, and accepted student responses. What was most interesting about this part of the classroom dialogue was that the teacher eventually

110

returned to the same place in the poem that the two female partners had originally

initiated their personal analysis of the text, i.e., the definition and significance of the word

“irreparable.” Thus, while Mrs. Stanford indicated that one of her main objectives was

that her students “apply what they learn in here to their lives out there,” this was not

obvious in the enactment of the curriculum. The discourse, rather than focusing on the

opinions, feelings, interests, and literary experiences of the students was, instead, more

closely aligned to a traditional analysis of literary elements. This was what the students

had, during their interviews, articulated as the received curriculum. Students had asserted

that they believed that teacher’s objective was to teach them “how to look deeper into poems” because “analyzing pieces” would be what they were “required to do in the

English courses” that they would encounter in college. This was consistent with what occurred during the enacted curriculum.

Mrs. Stanford had also suggested that she wanted the students to understand the historical and cultural factors that influenced literary movements and the literature produced in those periods. While the students did not articulate their perception of cultural issues, the students clearly indicated an understanding of the importance of historical context, including authorship and literary movements. The students also asserted that the selected texts were “some sort of a reference” for literary elements their teacher tried to explain. This last insight was evidenced in the continued classroom dialogue, as the teacher continued to emphasize a variety of literary devices during the analysis:

Teacher: (reads stanza four) Look at the allusions in lines 23 and 24. How does

111

she feel about her talent?

Student 2: She thinks that art can help. It makes her feel better. But her brain is

still not as a good as a man’s.

Teacher: Use words from the text.

Student 2: She says “weak and wounded.”

Teacher: Good. What is the tone here?

Student 4: sarcastic?

Student 2: bitter.

Student 7: discouraged.

Student 3: frustrated?

Teacher: Nice. Now we are looking at the shift. What word stands out to you?

Students: (inaudible mumbling)

Student 1: (loudly) “obnoxious!”

Teacher: Yes! What does that word mean here?

Student 1: She’s mad at people who think she’s not as good.

Teacher: Yes, here we have a Battle of the Sexes in the 1600s. Even with the

diction and the word choice, it’s about the battle between genders.

This is a gender poem. Has anyone read “Shakespeare’s Sister” by

Virginia Woolf?

Students: no…no

Teacher: I have a copy of it if anyone wants to read it. Did Shakespeare have a

sister?

Students: no….

112

Teacher: Then what do you think the piece might be about?

Student 9: That if he did have a sister, no one would read her or think much of

her ‘cause she’s a girl and Shakespeare is a guy.

Teacher: Yes. (reads stanza seven) What does this mean?

Student 5: Men get all the credit. But they should let women get respect for

something.

Teacher: Is she serious here?

Student 4: Nah, she’s being sarcastic.

Teacher: Are you sure?

Student 4: (murmuring)….yes? no. I don’t know.

Teacher: Ok. (reads stanza eight) Anyone know what “bays” are?

It was interesting to note that, after the teacher questioned the student (“Are you

sure?”), the student reconsidered his initial response. In being asked if he was certain

about his answer, the student began to doubt his response and his impression of the

author’s tone and intent. Perhaps what was more significant is that the teacher did not

acknowledge his uncertainty or address the literary issue at hand—whether or not the

author was being serious or sarcastic. Instead, to some degree, the entire exchange was

left without resolution. As such, another opportunity to engage the students in a more

authentic analysis, one rooted in their own uncertainty and search for clarity, was lost.

Thus, when faced with the prospect of making the soundtrack, it was no surprise that the students showed grave concern at meeting their teacher’s expectations for the final project. Given the emphasis placed on the type of literary analysis that was regularly undertaken in the classroom dialogue, the advanced placement students attempted to

113

correctly interpret the written directions of the task, as well as attend to those literary

elements that had been so prevalent in their regular class discourse. Attending to the

literary elements and terms that had been introduced and utilized in class became

paramount in their soundtracks. The soundtracks, then, became a forum for establishing

their ability to perform an analysis similar to the ones that had been done in class.

The class dialogue was also significant to note because Mrs. Stanford’s reference

to a second text (“Shakespeare’s Sister”) is reflected by the fact that the advanced

placement students often referred to texts outside of the primary novel when developing their novel soundtracks and narratives. This text-to-text association, very common in the classroom conversations of the advanced placement class, was replicated by the students

in the design of their literary soundtracks. Mrs. Stanford regularly reminded students

about texts previously read, not only in the current class, but in classes prior to this academic year. She also linked the texts the students were reading to texts they might

choose to read independently, copies of which she almost always had available for the

students.

Collaboration. Because of the extended core on this class meeting date, there was

limited time left for collaboration. The teacher explained that she was going to read

another short poem aloud, and the students’ “job” was to draw pictures of the images that

come to mind as she read the poem. She asked them to do so in pencil, “like a sketch,”

and indicated that they would be sharing these the next day. Students expressed concern

that their drawings would not be “good.” Mrs. Stanford then emphasized that artistic ability did not matter, and she was only interested in the “mental images” that came to mind. Students continued to complain that they “didn’t understand” the task, did not

114

know what they were “supposed to draw,” and were unclear about “what the point” of the

activity was. In response, the teacher reiterated that they only had to draw “whatever

comes to mind, whether it’s a picture, a symbol, or whatever.” Despite their sustained

protests, the teacher began reading the poem and the students started drawing.

Cool down. After the poem had been read and the sketches completed, the teacher

asked the students to put the drawings away for the next day. She thanked them for being

attentive during the poem analysis, reminded them of vocabulary homework due the

following class meeting, and dismissed them.

Several things must be pointed out here. First, over the course of the semester, the

teacher gradually relinquished more and more responsibility for the literary analysis of

text to the students. The excerpt reported here took place during the second week of

school, and, as such, was almost completely teacher-directed. As the students grew in

their knowledge of teacher expectations, literary elements, and background information

on literary devices, historical movements, and authors, Mrs. Stanford eventually provided

opportunities for students to completely analyze texts in small groups, partners, or

individually. These opportunities, however, usually ended with the teacher drawing the

class together as a whole and discussing the varying analyses in order to achieve some

type of consensus.

Second, in the beginning of the academic year, the students regularly balked at the

activities introduced during the collaboration phase of the class period. While they

appeared to become increasingly more comfortable with the drawing, singing, and acting

required of them, the students often requested more specific directions, asked if they were

“doing it right,” and solicited the teacher’s appraisal of their work during their

115

performance. They eventually appeared, especially at the end of the semester, to

genuinely enjoy the fine arts activities. However, the students continued to ask for

educator feedback, especially in attempting to determine how their performance on an

activity would be evaluated and whether or not it would “count for a grade.”

Third, and perhaps most significant, the students did not seem to perceive the

collaboration phase of the class as an integral aspect of the literary analysis. During the

interview, Mrs. Stanford had indicated that she felt the activities should be “enriching.”

She further suggested that “these activities should be fun” so that the students did not

necessarily “work harder” but that the activities “asked them to ‘work’ in a different

way.” During the student interviews, however, the students themselves were unable to

articulate the way in which their teacher chose transmediatory activities, the manner in

which these activities “fit” into the overall organization and goals for the course, or the

meaning-making potential of the activities. Instead, the curricular conversations

undertaken during the collaboration phase seemed disconnected from the rest of the class

period.

Planned Curriculum: SGT Recovery Class

Like the planned curriculum that had been designed for the advanced placement/honors class, the curriculum that had been intended for the SGT recovery class

included all of the materials, texts, methods and activities selected by the teacher for the

purpose of instruction within the classroom context (Applebee, 1996).

Course organization. The teacher, from the beginning of the interview, indicated

that she felt constrained by the impending testing for the “struggling” students in her SGT

recovery class. While she acknowledged that the tests were “necessary accountability

116

measures,” it became apparent that Mrs. Stanford had worried considerably about making the course exciting for the students while meeting their needs in “remedial” work. When asked how she organized the course, Mrs. Stanford responded,

I feel that I have less control over what is taught in the SGT recovery classes. I am

obligated to take the students to Study Island regularly, and see to it that they

make gains in reading, learning the parts of speech, and knowing how to write.

The Graduation Test looms. Parents and administration want to see results. I do

the best I can in balancing the focus on skills and making meaningful connections

to the students’ lives. But I admit that sometimes, I just have to wing it. I don’t

design a syllabus for the class—so much of what I do from day to day depends on

whether or not the students do what they’re supposed to do.

It must be noted here that Study Island was a self-described “web-based, self- paced, user-friendly” program designed to help students improve their test scores by focusing on topics “built from the Academic Content Standards and tested on the” State

Achievement and State Graduation Tests. Each topic was presented in a lesson, followed by assessment questions that had “detailed explanations that provide automated instruction.” Study Island was purchased by the district, implemented by the school, and monitored by the teacher, Mrs. Stanford. Each student was required to take a pre-test that included all content groups for the Academic Content Standards and, at the end of the term, had to pass a post-test in order complete the program successfully. The teacher had access to a private page where individual student progress was available, including usage statistics, individual results, and group results where the class as a whole was compared to the performance of students in the entire state. The students were provided with their

117

progress regularly, and the amount of time each student utilized the program, in addition

the progress made by the student, were used as part of the students’ final grades.

Mrs. Stanford stated that keeping up with their individual progress was time-

consuming and influenced her decisions “from day to day.” She regularly monitored their reading, writing, and skills progress by keeping scores on quizzes, tests, and Study Island results. She pointed to the fact that the art and music activities, while an essential part of

“higher level thinking,” were often perceived by the students as “fun.” As such, she

sometimes used the fine arts activities as a motivator, and indicated that her motto with the SGT students was that “we can’t have fun if there’s work to be done.”

Choosing texts. Mrs. Stanford explained that she picked literary pieces for the

students to read based on those that she felt “relatively certain the students can read independently,” and those to which she believed the students will “relate.” She pointed to the fact that many texts she chose for this class had themes similar to the “more literary, more difficult texts” chosen for the advanced placement class. As an example, she compared Killing Mr. Griffin and The Catcher in the Rye. Both texts, she argued, had male main characters and involved a “coming of age story” in which the characters experience “confusion, guilt, and plenty of angst.” Additionally, she pointed out that both novels had at least “one strong female persona and one weaker female personality” that allowed for classroom gender discussions, when time allowed. She mentioned the

“questionable content” that “encouraged students to see themselves in the text,” and allowed them a “safe forum” for talking about topics that were potentially “difficult or embarrassing” to broach like male-female relationship issues, sex, and criminal behavior.

She further indicated that the texts modeled, at least to some degree, the literary devices

118

she taught, and with the nebulous endings to both texts, there were opportunities for

reading and writing extensions.

Mrs. Stanford reiterated the fact that “hitting the state standards” was an important aspect of her plan, but admitted that “the students’ responsiveness, as well as the overall reading level of the text” affected her choices of texts for SGT classroom use.

Course objectives. Mrs. Stanford’s overall objectives for the SGT course were

much more limited. Besides the obvious goal of “helping the students acquire the skills

necessary to pass the [SGT] test,” one of her main goals was to help students “develop a

plan” for writing a five paragraph essay. She stated that she encouraged students to write

outside of class, especially in personal journals “because there are so many aspects of

their writing that need remedial work.” She indicated that, along with the advanced

placement students, she expected writing and speaking to be “grammatically correct” in

her classroom, although she admitted that teaching basic grammar was much more

necessary and considerably more difficult in the SGT class. More than anything, she

indicated that she wanted the students to

develop a sense of themselves as successful readers and writers. So many of these

students come to me believing they can’t read, can’t write, can’t pass that blasted

test! I do my best, with the time I have and the resources I’m given, to change

how they think, speak, read, write, and act. It can be so hard!

Utilizing activities. Mrs. Stanford indicated that she used far fewer fine arts

activities in her SGT classes than those designed for her advanced placement students.

She argued that the time constraints, even given the extended block scheduling, limited her ability to utilize a variety of methods. While she has attempted several of the same

119

activities used in her advanced placement class, she admitted that sometimes the students

“get out of hand,” causing her to “waste valuable time getting them back on track.”

Frequent absences and disciplinary measures (such as in-school suspensions, out-of-

school suspensions, and expulsions) also affected the ability of the students to “keep up”

with the “amount of material” she tried to cover. Mrs. Stanford stated that the activities

that seemed to work best were those in which students could be “active with their mind”

while “their bodies stay in their seats.” These included visual predicting activities, storyboards (Wilhelm, 1997), extension activities that included drawing, and the narrative soundtracks. Thus, because she was able to use far fewer activities in this class, the activities themselves were carefully chosen and implemented “with a great deal of preparation and fanfare.”

Mrs. Stanford asserted that she felt that the musical soundtracks were particularly

successful with the SGT students because “so many of them are really into music.” While

many students are reticent to put drawings on paper, she felt that music is

universal. The stuff they’re listening to, well, it may not be what you and I would

want to hear. But if you take the time to hear the words, you’d be surprised at the

deep and meaningful things some of these kids are listening to and thinking about.

By providing them with appropriate outlets for their musical knowledge and

interest, I think they like the literary text that much more.

She stated that, during the introduction of the soundtrack project, she always

made it “clear to all of the students that any music is acceptable.” She indicated that, as

long as they have a legitimate reason for including it and they justify the use of the song

in the narratives, she is “comfortable with a variety of musical genres.”

120

Assessment. The last part of planning that was addressed during the interview was assessment. Mrs. Stanford indicated that, as much as she believed that students need to know “where they stand” in a class, she felt that the accountability procedures required

for the remedial students “can be overwhelming,” even for educators who had been in the

classroom for long periods of time. She stated,

There’s so much more to reading and writing than performing on a test. I dislike

the weekly quizzes, but I have to show the parents and administrators that

we are making progress. I want the students, too, to see that even baby steps are

steps in the right direction.

She referred back to previous comments she had made during the discussion of

her planning for the advanced placement class. She argued that, if there were not so many

accountability issues with the “struggling” students, she would have more time and

flexibility in preparing and implementing activities that would put “more pressure on

them to actively think and create.” Like the advanced placement students, she felt that

reading, writing, and analyzing literature could and should be “fun,” and that the

activities used in the classroom should “support that goal by making the lesson

memorable” and “enriching the experience of reading and writing a variety of texts.”

Received Curriculum: SGT Recovery Students

The students’ perception of the planned curriculum was the received curriculum.

The SGT recovery students appeared to have a much more difficult time expressing their

understanding of the enacted curriculum. Overall, the interviews with these students were considerably shorter and required more effort on my part to encourage their

responsiveness.

121

Course organization and objectives. Based on an analysis of the interview data,

the students’ perceptions of the classroom set-up and goals were rooted partially in the

course title. The students understood that their placement in the class was a result of their failure to successfully pass the State Graduation Test, and that the main objective of the course was to gain the skills necessary to pass it. Many of the students used self- deprecating terms such as “the brainless class” and “the English course for dummies” to describe the class, even though they were quick to indicate that it had nothing to do with

Mrs. Stanford. Students indicated that they were always aware of when they were going to Study Island because of the computer room schedule hanging in the classroom, but that upcoming lessons were “sometimes a surprise, especially if Mrs. Stanford didn’t follow the [grammar] book.”

Students suggested that they usually covered one novel every three weeks or so, but that they rarely had a sense of what literary texts or writing assignments “were coming.” They also indicated an awareness of the fact that they read far fewer complete texts than other English classes and were subjected to reading from the literature book

[basal text] far more than their advanced placement counterparts.

Orlando, a varsity football player and self-described class “entertainer,” stated

that Mrs. Stanford’s overall goal for the English course was that their teacher “wants us to like reading.” Other students felt that the teacher “wants us to read and write better.”

Students often indicated that Mrs. Stanford wanted students to “feel better” about themselves as learners in general and readers in particular, stating that she encouraged the students to “have confidence that we can read whatever we want if we just make an effort and think about what we’re doing.”

122

Choosing texts and utilizing activities. Many students felt that their teacher’s main criterion for book and poetry selection was “whether or not we would like it.” When asked how she would know if they “would like it,” students stated that the Mrs. Stanford had given them an “interest inventory” on the first day of the new academic year, where they had written the titles of books they had read, as well as answered questions about the types of books they liked and disliked. Two students joked that they had “never read a book cover to cover,” and that Mrs. Stanford was “convinced she could change that.”

Several students felt that Mrs. Stanford tried to “challenge them” by picking texts they would not have read on their own had they not been required to read them.

The students in the SGT class felt that Mrs. Stanford planned and implemented activities in order to “break up the routine.” Emmett stated,

Sometimes doing the same thing over and over, it’s just like, so boring. Mrs. S.,

she’s cool that way. I know our class can’t be fun to teach sometimes, but

she tries to make it as bearable as possible for everyone.

The students suggested that Mrs. Stanford decided upon the activities that would encourage the students to interact with one another “in a positive way,” to “work with each other and not just play” in class. Several students lamented the fact that some of their classmates “created problems in class” and that several class activities Mrs. Stanford planned had either been cut short or eliminated completely because some of the students

“acted up.”

The SGT recovery students unanimously agreed that the activities, especially those involving art and music, were the highlight of being in Mrs. Stanford’s class. While the students had difficulty communicating a general objective for the activities, they did

123

believe that the activities helped them understand the texts. Students expressed “learning

what it feels like to be in a character’s shoes” or “imagining what the writer or the

character in the book might be thinking about.” Students also indicated that the activities

were designed for them to “have fun” with reading, “to see what’s good about reading

and writing,” and exploring the ways that “our lives may be like a story.” Like the

advanced placement class, the SGT recovery students also cited examples of specific

activities they had completed in the class and proposed what the purpose of those

particular activities might have been.

Assessment. Students indicated that they were “getting graded all the time.” They

explained that the teacher regular “gave points” for in-class practice, participation in

class, and completion of assignments. They were uncertain how the “points” translated

into “grades,” except for a vague notion of “the more points, the better.” The students

also explained that, for the most part, tests were graded traditionally, on a 100-point scale

that translated into a letter grade. It was interesting to note that none of the students

voluntarily mentioned their scores on Study Island, and when asked about it, the students

indicated that the Study Island scores were not a significant part of how Mrs. Stanford

assessed them, but were used mostly to help them monitor their own improvement.

Like the advanced placement students, the SGT recovery students understood the

importance of writing for the purpose of test-taking. They also stated, during interviews

that they believed that too much class time and emphasis were placed on learning about and practicing the “five paragraph essay.” All of the students interviewed felt that writing in such a structured format was the most difficult part of the class and that, despite the feedback and encouragement that Mrs. Stanford provided, they were still struggling.

124

Several students indicated that the narrative writing for the soundtrack was not nearly as

difficult, but that, given all the essay writing completed in class, many of them were

“tired of writing.”

The State Graduation Test recovery students, unlike the advanced placement students, were not as concerned about their “grades.” Many of them explained that their grades “had never been great” and that “most teachers did not expect” them to do well in

class or achieve passing grades. As a result, many of the students stated that they did “the

best they could,” especially in classes like English that had “always been hard” for them.

A few of the students, however, did express concern about passing the State Graduation

Test. Due in part to the limited amount of time left for these students to acquire the skills

necessary to successfully complete the test, these particular students took the weekly quiz

and test scores seriously. The fact that Mrs. Stanford “challenged” them by making them

read full texts, by providing timely feedback on reading and writing progress, and by

“believing” in their ability to pass the test weighed more heavily on them than the grades

they might get on their report cards and bring home to their parents.

Classroom Enactment: SGT Recovery Class

Curricular conversations. The weekly class observations I made of the State

Graduation Test (SGT) recovery class throughout the semester provided me with an opportunity to understand the curricular conversation of this particular class and to see the ways in which it compared to and contrasted that of the advanced placement class.

Due in great part to the aspects of the course required by the school, the schedule for this

class was established very early in the term and was relatively rigid. Because the students

in this class did not pass the State Graduation Test, a majority of class time was spent on

125

remedial work in grammar, reading, and basic writing skills. Thus, while the advanced

placement class consisted of five classroom episodes, including the introduction, warm

up, core, collaboration, and the cool down, the SGT recovery course essentially had only

four. These consisted of an introduction, a grammar/writing core, a vocabulary/reading

core, and a cool down.

Introduction. Approximately the first ten to fifteen minutes of each class meeting

were set aside as an introduction. This time, although it included greetings and a mutual acknowledgement of the students and teacher, was primarily used as a time to collect homework, establish a trajectory for the day, and, more often than not, to discuss individual student progress on various weekly evaluations. These assessments included

weekly vocabulary quizzes, weekly grammar tests, bi-monthly writing assignments, and

Study Island.

Grammar/writing core. The introduction period was followed by a 35 to 40

minute grammar/writing core. This time was usually lecture-oriented; the teacher introduced parts of speech, various grammatical rules, and then provided guided practice utilizing these skills. The time usually ended with some sort of written grammar exercise that was either collected by the teacher or graded as a class. On alternating days, the students were lectured on writing. Following a similar format, the teacher provided notes on various writing genres, gave students an occasion to practice a targeted skill in a teacher-directed class assignment, and then followed that activity with an independent writing task. Sometimes the assigned writing was short enough to be collected the same day it was assigned; other times, a due date for a draft, a revised or edited version, or a final copy was indicated.

126

Vocabulary/reading core. After a short restroom or stretch break, the

grammar/writing core was followed by the vocabulary/reading core. Again, the time

allotted for this was approximately 35 to 40 minutes. In most instances, this time

involved the oral reading of a text, a comprehension quiz of the text, or a lecture introducing a new text or author. As noted above, the teacher was often concerned that the students were not “doing the readings” at home; as a result, a great deal of class time was expended reviewing texts that had been assigned or reading aloud in class to make certain that all students were familiar with the text.

Cool down. Following this second core, the teacher briefly reviewed homework

assignments, emphasized due dates, discussed a tentative plan for the following day, and

dismissed students. This cool-down period usually lasted no more than three to five

minutes.

These classroom episodes were consistent during my observations of the

classroom, and usually maintained strict time guidelines. There was little flexibility in the

amount of time dedicated to each. Mrs. Stanford emphasized the need to “keep on

schedule with these students,” not only because of the computer time allotted to the Study

Island and the need to access the computer lab in a timely manner, but also because “any

sort of change in the schedule can make them [the students] disruptive.”

Classroom Enactment: An Illustrative Example of the SGT Recovery Class

In order to illustrate the nature of these four phases of the SGT class structure, the

course of one class period is described below. The example was taken from field notes

for September 12, 2006 and reported here. I chose this particular observation because it

was the first observation made that did not include class attendance in the computer lab

127

with students working on Study Island. This example provides insight into the types of

discussion and the spirit of the discourse in a more descriptive way than the simple

explanation of the classroom episodes. I have inserted labels in order to show the

transitions.

Introduction. The students began arriving in the classroom at 12:05. The bell rang at 12:10, but several students continued to arrive after the bell. Shortly after all the students were in their seats, the following dialogue occurred:

Teacher: Okay, everyone, let’s get started.

Student 1: When did you say the first essay was due?

Teacher: Next Wednesday. We’ll get to that. Get out today’s homework,

please.

Student 2: What was it?

Teacher: Grammar book page 253. Modifiers, remember?

Student 2: Yeah. Okay.

Most students began handing in their homework. Others rummaged though their

folders or notebooks, but did not submit anything. The teacher collected the papers that

were offered, paper clipped them, and placed them on her desk before explaining that she

was passing around the scores from yesterday’s grammar quiz and that students should

find their student identification numbers and note the grade in their individual test

chronologies. Test chronologies were teacher-designed spreadsheets that helped the

students monitor their grades for the term. Students were expected to have the

chronologies signed by their parents once a month, as means for facilitating the home-

school communication process.

128

Grammar/writing core. The teacher then requested that the students get out their folders and turn to notes taken during the previous day’s lecture. Most students retrieved their spiral notebooks.

Student 3: Mrs. S., I forgot my notebook. Can I go get it?

Teacher: Just look off a neighbor’s notes. We need to get going.

Student 3: We gonna take more notes, though, right?

Teacher: No, not today. Just look off your neighbor’s notes.

Student 3: Okay.

Teacher: Who remembers what modifiers are?

Student 4: adjectives and adverbs

Teacher: Yes. But what do they do?

Student 1: They give details.

Teacher: Alright. What else?

Student 5: Make your writing more interesting.

Teacher: Look at your notes, please.

Student 2: Adjectives describe nouns. Adverbs tell more about verbs.

Teacher: Good. Okay. Now, I am going to give you an article from yesterday’s

newspaper. The article is about the Cincinnati Bengals. Sportswriters

and sports commentators use adjectives and adverbs constantly. What

I want you to do is find all of the modifiers in the article. Circle or

highlight them.

Student 3: All of them?

Teacher. Yes, of course. I’m going to give you points for this.

129

This particular exchange was interesting. The teacher had requested that the students define “modifiers” for the class. After a couple of students attempted to respond to the question, one student stated that adjectives and adverbs “make your writing more interesting.” Although one of the teacher’s main objectives in the planned curriculum for the students was to “master and apply the part of speech in their writing,” she did not acknowledge the student’s response. The mastery of the skills, at this point, was handled

as separate and distinct from the ultimate and articulated purpose of that mastery—to

apply the modifiers in their writing. Thus, the enactment of the curriculum as evidenced in this exchange was more consistent with the curriculum received by the students than that which was planned by the educator.

While the teacher did not acknowledge the use of modifiers in the students’

writing, it was interesting to note the text with which the students were working. Rather

than practicing the skill using the language textbook, the teacher had chosen a local

newspaper. She pointed out to the students the practical uses for adjectives and adverbs,

such as writing a sports column or being a sports commentator. This was one way in

which the teacher attempted to capitalize on students’ outside interests such as sports, and

connect them to a more school-oriented literacy task.

Although this first core was usually either grammar or writing, on this particular

date, the teacher covered both. She collected the grammar assignment after about 15

minutes, and continued with a lecture on writing, specifically the prewriting and drafting

stages of the “writing process.” The teacher discussed the characteristics of a good essay,

including “specificity,” “good form,” and opening with a “great motivator.” At the

130

conclusion of the instruction, the teacher placed a prompt on the overhead and read it aloud,

Teacher: “Choose a character from a book you have read that is not the

principal character. Explain how the character adds to the

advancement of the plot, as well as the development other

characters.”

Student 2: Are we seriously going to write about this?

Teacher: Yes. Think about what we’ve talked about.

Students: (inaudible mumbling)

Teacher: Come on. Start working. Think about some books you’ve read.

Students: (continued mumbling)

Teacher: Let’s go. You need to have something for me tomorrow.

Remember that when we do the real writing prompt, you will

only have 45 minutes. Make sure that your idea is complex enough

for five paragraphs. Remember your introduction is a motivator and

your thesis presents the elements for your essay, like a blueprint.

Student 7: What do we do if we don’t know how to spell a word?

Teacher: If you don’t know how to spell a word, pick a different word.

The teacher’s objective in encouraging the students to choose a word that they

could spell was related to her knowledge that the students’ writing prompt would be

“marked down” for spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors. Even so, the students were

then limited in their ability to express themselves. While some of the students began

working on their essays, many students began socializing with or complaining to one

131

another about “ignorant assignments” and “stupid prompts.” The teacher circulated around the classroom, assisting students who requested help and encouraging students who were not working to begin writing their essays. This continued until the teacher asked the students to put their writing away, and she moved on to the vocabulary/reading core.

Vocabulary/reading core. On this particular date, the teacher lectured the students on Walt Whitman. The lecture included biographical information, titles of publications, and basic terms (e.g. stanza, free verse, rhythm) related to poetry. After approximately 20 minutes, the teacher began a short question-and-answer exchange with the class as a whole.

Teacher: So he was happy to change poetry. What was his style?

Student 1: Like lists?

Teacher: Okay. It did mimic the rhythm of everyday common language.

But what word did I…

Student 3: (interrupting) free verse?

Teacher: Good. Yes. Who has seen the movie, Dead Poet’s Society?

Students: (murmuring)

Teacher: Okay, well, the teacher, played by Robin Williams…

Student 5: (interrupting) Oh, yeah, I know that one.

Teacher: The teacher encourages the boys in his class to let out a “barbaric

yelp.” That phrase, “barbaric yelp,” came from one of Whitman’s

poems. We’re going to read one of the Whitman’s poems today.

Please get the literature books off of the shelves.

132

The students retrieved the literature books and turned to the appropriate page. The teacher then directed the students to read the poem and respond, in writing, to the five comprehension questions at the end. These seven questions were superficial at best, and required a perfunctory understanding of the poem. Students used the remainder of the time, working independently on reading the poem and answering questions. The teacher moved around the room, answering student questions and getting students back on task.

Cool down. The cool down period for this class period was very brief. The teacher reminded the students of the completed essay that was due the following week, the rough draft on the new prompt that was due tomorrow, and then requested that the students

“turn in whatever [they] had finished” on the comprehension questions for Walt

Whitman.

Two things must be explained here. First, there were far fewer opportunities provided for the SGT students to engage with the teacher, with one another, and with the text than for the advanced placement/honors students. More instructional time was devoted to providing information via lectures, taking notes, reading the text orally in class, and practicing vocabulary and grammar skills. While the block scheduling did allow for increased on-task time, the students were not engaged in the same type of cooperative and collaborative opportunities provided to the advanced placement students.

Secondly, very few fine arts activities were utilized in the SGT recovery class.

While references to movies, songs, and visual art might be made, little time was dedicated to their exploration. As illustrated in the example above, the teacher referred to the movie, Dead Poet’s Society, but the movie clip was not shown to the students. Thus, while the extended class periods might have provided ample time for such activity,

133

several things precluded this educator from taking advantage of it. Among these were the

teacher’s concerns for the students’ behavior during atypical or unanticipated activities,

as well as her anxiety about the students’ performance on the State Graduation Test.

Summary and Discussion

Based on the observational field notes and the student interviews, two different

patterns emerged for the curricular organization of the two classes. The advanced

placement class had five classroom episodes that were consistent, but flexible in time

guidelines. The advanced placement students’ understandings of the received curriculum

were clearly linked to the enactment of the five phases of the class schedule, the material

content introduced, and the curricular conversations in which the students and the

teachers engaged during those classroom episodes. The State Graduation Test recovery

class, however, had four classroom phases. While these were rigid and time-constrained,

the SGT students’ reception of the curriculum was more consistent with the teacher’s

planned curriculum than with the curriculum enacted.

Chapter Five explores the effect of the curricular conversations and classroom discourse discussed here on the soundtrack-making assignment given to the students.

Each class will be presented as an individual case study, followed by a cross case analysis.

134

Chapter Five

Those who wish to sing always find a song. -Swedish Proverb

The Case Studies

Having reviewed the contexts and curricular conversations in which the

soundtrack-making activity was set, we are able to look closely at the soundtracks and

narratives designed by the students. This chapter presents two distinct case studies. The

first considers the honors/ advanced placement students, and the other looks at the students in the State Graduation Test recovery class. In each of the two sections, there will be a brief introduction of the case, followed by a summary of the text used. I will then explore the context in which the text was introduced, the activities used within the development of the unit, and an exploration of the soundtracks developed by the students as a result of novel unit. Following the two case studies is a cross case analysis.

Honors students: “Getting it right”

The 23 advanced placement high school students in this study spent one week

prior to the soundtrack-making activity reading the classic novel, The Catcher in the Rye

(Salinger, 1951). In order to better understand the excerpts from the soundtrack

narratives, a summary of The Catcher in the Rye (Salinger, 1951) is included below and

is then followed by a discussion of the novel unit.

The Text

Summary of The Catcher in the Rye. The story is set in the 1950s and is written as

a first-person narrative from the viewpoint of a young man named Holden Caulfield. His

story begins following the end of fall classes at the Pencey prep school in Pennsylvania,

where Holden is failing a majority of classes and is being expelled. As he prepares to

135

leave the dormitory, Holden is aggravated by his dorm neighbor, Ackley, and his

roommate, Stradlater. Stradlater is about to go out on a date with Jane Gallagher, a girl

Holden used to date and whom he still likes. After Stradlater and Holden argue verbally

and then physically fight over the girl, Holden decides to leave for Manhattan (his home)

three days early, stay in a hotel, and not tell his parents that he is back.

Holden takes the train to New York , gets in a cab, and heads to the Edmont

Hotel. There he checks himself in and decides to call Faith Cavendish. Ms. Cavendish is a woman he has never met, but whose phone number he got from a friend at Princeton.

Holden believes he had heard Faith was once a stripper and, he believes that if he can get her to meet him, he will be able to convince her to have sex with him. Faith Cavendish and Holden talk for a while, but she does not want to go out until tomorrow night; Holden does not want to wait that long and hangs up.

Holden goes downstairs to the Lavender Room of the hotel, where he flirts with

three women in their thirties. Holden orders a drink, but the waiter recognizes he is a minor and refuses to serve him; as a result, the three women begin making fun of his age.

He dances with the girls, and he finds himself attracted to the blond; but they wind up

leaving and sticking him with their entire bill.

The next morning, Holden calls Sally Hayes, a girl he dated in the past. They

arrange to meet for a matinee showing of a Broadway play. Sally and Holden go to the

play and then to Radio City to ice skate. Holden tries to explain to Sally why he is

miserable at school, and tries to persuade her to run away with him. When she refuses, he

makes fun of her and laughs, so she gets angry and leaves.

136

Holden then has drinks with an old friend until he is completely inebriated.

Holden then decides to sneak into his own apartment building and wake his sister. He is

forced, at that time, to admit to Phoebe that he has been kicked out of school once again.

She gets angry at him, even as he tries to explain why he hates school. He then tells her

his fantasy of being “the catcher in the rye,” a person who catches little children as they

are about to fall off of a cliff. His younger sister then tells him that he has mistakenly

recalled the poem from which that concept was taken: Robert Burns’ poem says, “if a

body meet a body, coming through the rye,” not “catch a body.”

The next day, Holden goes to Phoebe’s school and sends her a note, indicating

that he is leaving home permanently and that she should meet him at lunchtime at the

Museum of Natural History. When she arrives, Phoebe begs Holden to take her with him.

Knowing she will follow him, he walks to the zoo and then takes her across the park to

the carousel. He buys Phoebe a ticket and watches her ride it. Holden is so happy

watching Phoebe ride the merry-go-round that he is close to tears.

This is where Holden ends the narrative, telling the reader that he does not intend

to tell how he went home and “got sick.” He is clear about the fact that he is undergoing

treatment in a mental hospital, plans to attend yet another school in the fall, and is

cautiously optimistic about what the future might hold for him.

The Catcher in the Rye Unit. In order to better understand the soundtracks and accompanying narratives developed around the novel, especially in light of the curricular conversations surrounding the implementation of this activity, the unit for The Catcher in the Rye (Salinger, 1951) is explained here. The discussion of this unit includes the

137

introduction of the novel, examples of the classroom discussions, and some of the activities used during the development of the unit.

On the first day of the new unit, Mrs. Stanford began by giving the students an anticipation guide (see Appendix I) during a collaboration period. On the guide there were statements such as “People are often fake;” the students were expected to specify their own opinions by placing a checkmark in front of those statements with which they agreed. The directions indicated that, at the conclusion of the unit, the students would return to the anticipation guide and do the same for “Holden’s opinion” of the same statements. After the students completed this task, the teacher collected them and put them in a file for later use. There was no discussion regarding completion of the anticipation guide.

During the same class period, the students were given a copy of the lyrics to

Green Day’s song, “Who wrote Holden Caulfield?” (see Appendix J). The students were asked to read and analyze the composition by answering five questions. These questions focused on describing the main character in the song, predicting themes in the novel, and suggesting meanings for particular phrases in the composition (see Appendix K). After the students completed the guide independently, the whole class discussed their answers.

The students responded enthusiastically to this activity, stating that they believed that

Holden Caulfield, the main character, would be a “typical teenager” who may be considered “lazy” by adult standards, but, in actuality was “confused” or “depressed” or just “unhappy.” The class, as a whole, came to agree that “Green Day probably wrote this song because they saw that there were people still out there like this.”

138

On the second day of the novel unit, the Mrs. Stanford played a short clip from a recruiting video for a prestigious boarding school on the East coast. She then asked the students to break into several small groups, and handed to each group brochures of prep schools such as Exeter, West Hampshire, and Phillips. She explained that these were examples of the kind of school that represented the setting of The Catcher in the Rye

(Salinger, 1951). In order to get a sense of the setting before initiating a text reading, the teacher emphasized that such schools were for very wealthy teenagers, and she described the boarding schools as environments where “it’s like going to college in, like, the second grade.” Along with the brochures, Mrs. Stanford gave each group a paper to guide their exploration of the brochures. The reading guides included questions regarding the school’s location, admission criteria, mission statement, student-teacher ratio, campus appearance, and annual cost and fees. The guide also asked the students to consider opportunities offered by the school such as summer programs, special classes, extracurricular activities, and areas of interest both on and off campus. The students seemed especially intrigued by this particular collaboration, as evidenced by the following exchange of four male students in the class:

Student 1: (to student 3) You can summarize the mission statement.

Student 2: (to student 3) It starts here—ends here. What are you writing?

Student 3: I’m summarizing.

Student 4: (to student 3) So, what’s their mission statement?

Student 1: (laughing) To brainwash kids

Student 2: Seriously, the whole first paragraph is the mission statement!

Student 1: Let me look at that. (pause) They have a whole class on the

139

Holocaust!

Student 2: Man, I would love to take that class! Look, Zen Buddhism!

Student 3: Oh, my god! Boarding student $33,000! Non-boarding student

$24,000!

Student 4: Bet the teachers make a lot of money.

Student 1: Christ, these people are crazy!

Student 3: Yeah, it must be nice. All that money.

Student 2: How can you teach a whole class on the Holocaust?

Student 3: Look at how many students attend this school, will you?

Student 2: It doesn’t say. Wait. Let me look at that other little book.

Student 1: Look at their campus!

Student 4: Whoa, that’s weird!

Small group discussions such as the one indicated above were eventually closed and the students were then drawn into a class dialogue, where the information gathered from the small groups’ investigations were compared and contrasted. As part of the cool down phase on this particular day, the students were asked to read the first two chapters of the text and be prepared to discuss them on the following class meeting.

The reading of the novel took a little less than five class sessions, as most of text was read independently by the students outside of class. During the five class periods, then, the teacher was able to use both core and collaboration time to discuss the plot of the story, the dialogue, characters’ actions and the motivation behind their behavior, and the use of literary devices in the text. Collaborative products included one short writing pieces and several opportunity for small groups to re-enact what they considered the

140

“most exciting scenes” of the story. At the end of the unit, the students were provided

with four days of 60-minute collaborative periods to work on the soundtracks in class, as

well as one day of presentations of those soundtracks. Students were also given time to

complete the “Holden’s opinion” section of the anticipation guide completed at the

beginning of the unit. The whole class discussed both set of responses on the anticipation

guide. To culminate the unit, a traditional, objective test was administered, and the

students were asked to complete a more subjective “Most Likely to” paper (see Appendix

L) as part of the students’ final evaluations.

Thus, the unit for Catcher in the Rye (Salinger, 1951) utilized music activities,

dramatizations, and writing assignments, in addition to independent reading of the text

and in-class literary analysis. Mrs. Stanford concluded the unit with both an objective and

a more subjective evaluation of student understanding of the text in the form of the

soundtrack assignment.

The Music

Developing soundtracks. The 23 advanced placement high school students in this

study worked cooperatively in groups of 2-4 to create narrative soundtracks for the

classic novel. The seven narrative soundtracks produced by these advanced students were

designed according to the specifications of the teacher’s directions (see Appendix M),

and resulted in a total of 52 music-text associations. The musical soundtracks and

narratives produced by students were analyzed to see if (and to what degree) the

transmedial connections between the literary texts and the musical texts conformed to the

seven types of associations that were derived through open coding (Strauss & Corbin,

1990) in the pilot study.

141

An examination of these soundtracks and narratives, as well as the associations

within, indicated, first and foremost, that the honors students created soundtracks that

were primarily an analysis of the text. Rooted partly in their interpretation of the written directions and their understanding of the teacher’s expectations for the finished product, students focused their soundtracks on the literary elements such as characterization, setting, and plot. Emotive responses, if they were addressed at all, were used simply as a

starting point for the traditional literary analysis. This is exemplified by the fact that more

than half of the associations generated by the students in the narrative part of the

soundtrack were analyzing (see Table 5.1). Analyzing consists of “making sense” of the text in a very traditional and literal sense. Students who generated these types of

associations were interested in getting at the “right” and acceptable meaning of the text

by examining characters, plot, setting, and other literary elements.

Table 5.1 Totals of Connection Categories for advanced placement students

Connection Categories # of times used Analyzing 27 Constructing 13 Intertextualizing 11 Connecting 1

Tom, Lindy, and Tara were the advanced placement student authors of the first

soundtrack. Tom and Lindy were introduced in Chapter Four. These two students, members of the National Honor Society, were taking at least one other advanced placement class besides the honors English course. Tara, the third member of the group, was an active member of Student Council and interested in photography. This trio, as an example of students getting the perceived “correct” responses, used the transmedial

142

technique of analyzing to provide “proof” that they had read, scrutinized, and understood

certain aspects of the text. They used the song, “Stand Up” by Trapt to explore the scene

where Holden and Stradlater fight over Jane. The students wrote:

This song is perfect for the mood of the scene because it starts out as giving

warnings to someone who is starting a fight, and in the end the singer beats up

who started it…Stradlater would be the main character (singer) and Holden would

be the instigator. In the song the main character is attacked by the instigator and

knocks him around and makes him leave before he finishes. The song states that

the instigator is crossing the line and that is exactly what Holden does. The fight

is started by Holden’s insecurities. Stradlater is on a date with Jane…When

Stradlater returns from the date, Holden gets in his face and starts asking him

questions….Holden gets mad and pushes him, but in the end it is Stradlater who

wins and has Holden pinned by his shoulders and leaves him with a bloodied

nose.

Although the student authors originally referred to the “mood” of the scene, they did not delve deeply into the feelings that such a song might evoke in them as they listened to it or the ways in which the mood of the scene might relate to the mood (as expressed in tone, tempo, harmonies, rhythm, etc.) of the music. Instead, the students switched quickly to the lyrics of the song as a means for explaining why the song choice

is appropriate and building upon that in order to demonstrate that they have read and

understood the significance of the scene they have chosen.

The finding that students created soundtracks that were primarily an analysis of

the text is further evidenced by the fact that the other half of the 52 transmedial

143

connections was comprised of constructing and intertextualizing (refer to table 4.1). The

act of constructing, although it indicated willingness to look and move further than the

novel, is still rooted in literary analysis. Students demonstrated an understanding of

characters, events, and even plot before they moved beyond that analysis toward a more

abstract conceptualization of those story elements.

The advanced placement student authors of the second soundtrack were Susan,

John, and Jared. All three of these students were active in organized school sports,

including basketball and track. None of these students were in other advanced placement

classes; all three expressed a desire to go to college. This group used the transmedial

technique of constructing when they explained the same scene as the one explored by the authors of the first soundtrack , the scene in which Holden and Stradlater fought over

Jane. The students writing the second soundtrack narrative used the song “Come out

Fighting” by Pennywise when they wrote:

This song is used to depict what happens when Holden and Stradlater fight. They

fight because Holden is jealous that Stradlater is spending time with Jane. He

[Holden] lets out his anger for him [Stradlater] and they fight. The song talks

about letting out your feelings and not holding them in. A person has to be able

to cope with his feelings any way he can.

The students started out by exhibiting their knowledge of the scene, including the

characters’ underlying motivation (“They fight because Holden is jealous”) but then the

students moved just beyond the title and lyrics of the song in order to enter a more

creative space that is neither the world of the text nor is explicitly the students’ personal

environment. In this space, students were able to think more abstractly and to verbalize

144

vague impressions or notions they may have: “A person has to be able to cope with his

feelings any way he can.” Even so, the transmedial connection is still primarily utilized as

a means to provide evidence that the scene has been appropriately analyzed.

Used almost as frequently as constructing in the seven soundtracks,

intertextualizing was the association of a new text to knowledge, experience, or simply the words of a previous text. An example of intertextualizing came from soundtrack four.

The student authors of this soundtrack used the song “I ain’t gotta tell you” by Ne-Yo to make direct and explicit connections between a scene from the novel and the lyrics of the song. The students wrote:

The scene for this song is when Holden goes skating with Sally and he talks about

how she looks in her skirt. The song is appropriate for the scene because the same

thing that the guy is saying in the song is the same way that Holden is thinking.

This particular intertextual association seemed superficial at best because the

connections drawn provide little insight into the students’ thinking about either text. No

lyrics were chosen from the song, nor were there any words from the novel that illustrate how the “thing the guy is saying” and what “Holden is thinking” were related. The reader of the soundtrack narrative was left to draw his or her own conclusions about the parallels

between the two texts.

The fourth and final transmedial association was a single example of connecting.

Connecting involves the student relating his or her personal life experience to the

characters, events, or settings of the text. Only student authors of soundtrack six

attempted such an association by using the song “Down by the Bay” to explain their

145

thinking about the personality of Phoebe, the younger sister of the main character,

Holden Caulfield. The students wrote:

“Down by the Bay” was chosen to represent Phoebe since she is still a young girl

who has a big heart. Phoebe is childlike and loves to have a great time. When we

were little, this song was taught in preschool and used like a jump rope song.

“Down by the Bay” is a playful tune that makes any child happy.

In connecting their memories of prior schooling and life as a young child to this

particular song, the student authors brought their life experience to the forefront in

interpreting the attitude, motivation, and behavior of one of the characters in the text.

The limited number of attempts at connecting in the narrative soundtracks created

by the advanced students, as well as the lack of evidence of the remaining three types of transmedial associations (imaging, engaging, and evaluating/reflecting) were indicative

of the advanced students’ desire to render a literary analysis of the text, even if that

traditional textual evaluation was represented in a more creative form. An increased use

of the four associations (connecting, imagining, engaging, and evaluating/reflecting) not used or used sparingly would have implied a more personal, emotional, or affective response. Had they been present, these associations would have indicated an ability to visualize the characters, to imagine what the scenes looked like; their presence would have implied a willingness to empathize with characters, to judge the value of the reading experience, to evaluate the text itself or the ways in which the text affected them. One explanation for their absence and the implications of their nonappearance in the soundtracks will be discussed fully in Chapter Six.

146

Utilizing music. The soundtrack-making process, specifically the writing of the

accompanying narratives, was perceived by the advanced placement students as not only

an opportunity to present analyses of the literary text, but also an obligation to the same.

Without exception, all seven soundtracks developed by the advanced students were used as a vehicle for presenting the students’ understanding of the text, in an acceptable, albeit creative, format. The narratives that accompanied the soundtracks indicated that very emphasis was not placed on students’ personal reactions to the text nor did the soundtrack

narratives explore students’ feelings about the music.

Interestingly enough, however, all of the advanced placement groups used

classroom time set aside for the project to enjoy listening to their favorite tunes and for

more aesthetic discussions of the artists or compositions. The authors of the first

soundtrack, for example, were Tom, Lindy, and Tara. These students came to class the

first day of the soundtrack-making process with CDs in hand. They took the CD player

out in the hall and began the following exchange:

Lindy: We’re gonna share.

Tom: Gonna share what?

(Lindy laughs while she turns on the CD player; song begins)

Tom: This has nothing to do with the book.

Lindy: I like the song.

Tara: Is this…is it a Chris Birney song?

(Lindy and Tara laugh at the lyrics)

Tara: Pretty funny.

(Lindy forwards the track)

147

Lindy: Oh, oh, this is my favorite!

Tara: We can use this.

Tom: For what scene?

(All three listen intently to the lyrics)

Tara: For his little brother?

Lindy: Oh, Oh…I love these songs (forwarding the tracks)

Tom: Well, we are accomplishing nothing with that CD…

Tara: This is pretty exciting! Love listening…

Tom: So?

Lindy: So what? I listen to CDs over and over.

Tom: These aren’t gonna help us!

Lindy: Never know…this is my favorite song…I just wanna listen to the

beginning and then we can change it.

Tara: Me and my step-sister always listen to this.

(Lindy continues searching the tracks)

Tom: Let’s find one that will actually help us?!

In the discussion above, two of the three group members took pleasure in the music-listening opportunities, yet there was one student who directed (and in this scenario, redirected) the group dialogue back to the task of developing an acceptable soundtrack that met the requirements specified by the teacher. The emotional responses

(“pretty funny,” “this is my favorite,” “this is pretty exciting,” “love listening”) were met with an increasingly insistent voice to get back on task, to work on the soundtrack, even though this was the first day set aside for the groups to develop a plan and initiate the

148

process. This was further evidence that many students felt compelled to produce a

soundtrack and narrative that excluded personal reactions and focused primarily on

literary analysis, even though all of the groups took pleasure in listening to the music and engaged in a variety of emotional and aesthetic discussions involving the musical compositions.

Despite the fact that students had one main goal in mind—producing an

acceptable analysis of the novel—the soundtrack-making process itself, the task of

connecting appropriate music and elements of the literary text, was very fluid. Rather

than representing a linear process in which students chose a song and then found a

suitable passage from the text, or, conversely, selected a scene or character from the text

and then matched that to a song that expressed their understanding, students indicated that they generally had “no plan” for creating the soundtrack. Students indicated that they

initiated the soundtrack-making task in a variety of ways: they gathered the CDs they had

at home to bring to class; browsed song titles; listened to the lyrics on both their CDs and

songs on the radio; thought of some scenes or characters they found interesting, made

general lyric searches on the internet; tried to make connections using “key words;” or

went to preferred bands to revisit favorite songs. Many soundtrack-making groups

indicated that they used multiple plans for matching songs and text, including any and all of the above.

This fluid movement can be illustrated by taking a continued look at Tom, Lindy,

and Tara’s discourse on that first day. Tom had just implored his project partners to

listen to songs that “will actually help” them complete the soundtrack.

Tom: Let’s find one that will actually help us?!

149

Lindy (to Tom): How ‘bout Nickelback?

Tara (to Tom): Bon Jovi?

Lindy (looking at CDs): Michael Jackson?

Tara (singing): Billy Jean is not my girl. She’s just a girl who…

Tom (interrupting): Come on. We need to pick our scenes.

Tara: Once you hear songs that remind you of something…what scenes?

Tom: How about the one where he’s with that prostitute?

Lindy: I know the scene you’re talking about

Tara: A song will…will…don’t ya think?

Lindy: What about when he gets kicked out? (putting in a new CD)

Tom: Is that considered a scene?

Tara: Yeah, yeah, like when he says, “Sleep tight, morons.”

Tom: He reminds me of me…

Tara: What’s the name of that song playing?

Lindy: “Save Me” (listening)…Wanna use “Save Me” for him leaving Pencey?

Tara and Lindy (singing): …life didn’t turn out….

Several things were significant to note here. First of all, the students exhibited, at least at the outset of the task, different ideas about what it meant to “work on” the soundtrack during this class period. While Tom wished to begin the task by choosing the scenes and then explore artists and listen to songs, Tara and Lindy’s behavior appeared to indicate that they believed the music would lead them to a particular scene. Tara’s statement (“once you hear the songs that remind you of something”) implied that she felt that the music would help them decide what scenes to choose.

150

Secondly, as they listened to the music and explored different possibilities, they

not only negotiated the soundtrack-making process, they also mutually interpreted the

directions of the assignment and defined the terms of those directions. Tom, for example,

questioned whether or not Holden getting “kicked out” or “leaving Pencey” would be

“considered a scene.” Even though the girls did not respond directly to his question, they

indicated that they did consider it a scene by pointing to a more particular moment in the scene (Tara says, “Yeah, when he says, ‘Sleep tight, morons.’”) and by showing agreement in choosing a song (“Save Me”) to represent that scene.

Third, and perhaps most noteworthy, was the fact that Tom showed a propensity

to make a more personal connection by engaging when he started the statement, “He

reminds me of me….” Engaging involved an emotional involvement, an ability to

empathize or identify with a particular character. This opportunity, however, was

thwarted by the fact that the girls did not pick up on Tom’s comment or ask him

questions that would allow him to investigate that thought. The possibility of Tom

exploring his feelings of kinship to Holden Caulfield was lost as the girls interrupted and

the group moved on, connecting the song, “Save Me” to the scene of Holden leaving his

boarding school.

A similar situation occurred as the group continued their discussion. In this

excerpt of the exchange, it was Tara who showed an inclination to move to a more

experiential response when a song by Michael Jackson reminded her of an unnamed

movie. As with Tom’s personal reference, Tara’s comment was ignored as the group

moved forward in matching scenes and songs.

Tara: Ok, now let’s listen to Michael Jackson.

151

Lindy: I love this CD (holding up a Nickelback CD)

Tom: Yeah, except all their songs are on the radio

Tara: I love “Billy Jean”

Lindy: His music is awesome

Tara: It reminds of that movie every time I hear it.

Lindy: (singing) Beat it, just beat it

Tom: When he gets beat up by Stradlater?

(all three laugh)

Tom: Yeah, yeah…when he gets beat up by Stradlater!?

Tara: Yeah. That’s good. Let’s use it.

Again, this dialogue illustrated two things. First, opportunities for more emotional or experiential responses to the text or to music were seemingly ignored in favor of completing the project in a more traditional, literary way. Secondly, it illustrated the fluid movement of the process as the students explored musical compositions and the literary

text in class. As indicated above, the students themselves recognized this fact by

acknowledging that they proceeded with “no plan” in mind, exploring a variety of venues

as they created their narrative soundtracks. Students indicated that they “went back and

forth, sometimes choosing the scene and looking for the music to match,” and then, in

listening to some music for that purpose, “different scenes would come to mind.”

Some students even admitted that they often looked for songs “that explained

themselves in the lyrics” so they could include an analysis of the literary text with a

minimal amount of writing about the musical composition. All seven groups indicated

that the soundtrack was an opportunity to show the teacher what they “remembered about

152

the story” and how they “looked deeper into novels to get a better understanding of what

it [the literary text] meant.”

The Curricular Conversation

Perceptions of assessment. Students in the advanced placement/honors class had

mixed perceptions regarding the efficacy of the soundtrack-making activity. Even within

individual groups, students disagreed about the utility of the activity in helping them

negotiate meaning from The Catcher in the Rye (Salinger, 1951). Susan, for example,

from the second soundtrack-writing group, indicated that she felt that making the

soundtrack “didn’t change what we thought or how we thought.” John and Jared,

however, who were part of the same group, disagreed. Jared stated that “analyzing and

class discussions are generally what we do when we go over anything in class,” and that

the soundtrack-making process gave him an opportunity to talk to his group about

characters and scenes in the novel that the teacher “probably wouldn’t spend much time

on ‘cause she wouldn’t think they were important to the whole story.” John agreed,

indicating that one of the scenes that remained a topic of discussion for several days was

when Holden talked to the prostitute and tried to “get with” the girls in the bar. When it

was pointed out to the three members of this group that these scenes were not chosen for

inclusion on their narrative soundtrack, John and Jared laughed while Susan noted that “it

wouldn’t have been appropriate for a school project.”

Tom, a student from the first group, indicated that “in breaking apart the scenes in order to match it to a song, you notice some details in the book that you didn’t before.”

Tara, from the same group, concurred, adding that while working on the project, “you got to find out what your group members thought was important in the story and so you could

153

talk about that.” Lindy, however, felt that the project actually helped her “learn more

about what she liked about different songs than get anything more important outta the

story.”

Thus, while the students in all seven groups in the advanced placement class

indicated that they enjoyed doing the project, even stating that it was “better than all the

other projects we’ve done in this class,” all seven groups, without exception, indicated

that they saw it more as an assessment than as a medium designed for deepening their

understanding of the story. Students appeared to believe that, based on class discussions

of the text that centered on the development of acceptable analyses, the “meaning” of the

novel had already been pre-determined prior to the introduction of the soundtrack-making

assignment. Several students indicated that they felt that the most important part of doing

the project was “getting it right.” When asked what “getting it right” meant to them, one

student said, “like you know, pick the best scenes, choose the most important characters,

draw a good cover, let the teacher know you know your stuff.” When asked what the

“best scenes” were, the same student indicated that those scenes were the ones the teacher

had discussed the most in class or around which some activities were designed.

One student even pointed out that he “knew” the soundtrack project was going to

be used as an assessment because of “the handout that outlined what [the teacher] wanted

us to hand in.” As a result, many groups complained that the amount of class time set

aside for working on the project—four days of 60-minute periods each—was insufficient to allow them to produce their best work. Kiani, from the fourth soundtrack group stated,

“I just wish we would have had more time. It was placed too close to finals, so we didn’t

give it as much time as we wanted.” Students indicated that, in order to finish the projects

154

by the due date, many of the groups had eventually distributed the work of getting copies of lyrics, writing the narratives, designing cover art, and burning the final copy of the soundtrack among the group members, and as a result, each student completed a vast majority of it at home, individually and in isolation. The one collaborative effort noted by the students was the writing of the original soundtrack—all seven groups reported completing this part of the project during the class periods set aside for the activity.

“Struggling” students: “Keeping it real”

The 21 high school students who were identified as “struggling” due to their need for remediation in order to pass the State Graduation Test read Killing Mr. Griffin

(Duncan, 1978). In order to better understand the excerpts from the soundtrack narratives, a summary of Killing Mr. Griffin (Duncan, 1978) is included below.

The Text

Summary of Killing Mr. Griffin. The story takes place at Del Norte high school where Mr. Brian Griffin is a stern and proper English teacher. Not one to accept late homework or coddle the students in his classes, many of them consider Mr. Griffin too tough and difficult.

Mark Kinney, one of the main characters, lives with an aunt and uncle. His father died and his mother had a nervous breakdown, so he was removed from the home and sent to live with his relatives. He is the primary mastermind of the plot to kidnap Mr.

Griffin, which starts as a prank to scare the teacher and “teach him a lesson.” Mark involves his friends in this scheme: David, president of the senior class; Jeff, a basketball player; Betsy, the head cheerleader; and Susan, a good student in Mr. Griffin’s class.

155

Susan McConnell, acting as the decoy, engages Mr. Griffin after school in a conversation concerning one of the class assignments. She then walks with him to the parking lot, where the boys (Mark, David, and Jeff) kidnap him and drive him to a secluded and secret place in the mountains. At that time, Mark wants Mr. Griffin to beg

them for his freedom in the same way that he (Mark) had to beg to be able to retake Mr.

Griffin’s class when he was caught plagiarizing a paper. Mr. Griffin, however, refuses to beg, and Mark leaves him there, bound by ropes and blindfolded.

When Susan and David return later to check on Mr. Griffin, he is dead.

Apparently, Mr. Griffin had angina that required him to take medication, but, being

bound, he was unable to take his pills when the heart condition acted up. Once the other

students find out that Mr. Griffin is dead, they conspire to place him in a shallow grave.

Susan, however, will not comply, and the group begins to fear that she will either inform

others of what has occurred or will have a nervous breakdown.

Before Mr. Griffin is buried, David decides to take Mr. Griffin’s class ring from

Stanford because it reminds him of the father that left him. Days later, Mr. Griffin’s body

is discovered and the police are notified. In the meantime, David’s grandmother finds Mr.

Griffin’s ring in the drawer of David’s bureau, but, believing it to be the one that belongs to her son (David’s father), she keeps the ring and refuses to acknowledge to David that she has it until she is allowed to see her son.

The other students, upon hearing that David has taken the ring and that his

grandmother will not return it, decide that they must hide or destroy the ring, since it is

evidence of their crime. Mark, desperate now to get the ring, kills David’s grandmother.

Susan, aghast at all that has happened and believing Mark to be dangerous, threatens to

156

tell the police everything that has occurred. Mark attempts to keep her silent by getting

Jeff and Betsy to help him bind Susan and set her house on fire.

Mrs. Griffin and Detective Baca, however, have been working on putting the events together. Eventually, the scheme unravels; Detective Baca and Mrs. Griffin arrive in time to save Susan from dying in the fire. The fates of all of the conspirators are never revealed as the novels ends simply by Susan’s parents telling her that they will stand by her through whatever lies ahead because Mark Kinney, a psychopath, is completely to blame for manipulating her and the other students into committing the crime.

Killing Mr. Griffin Unit. In order to better understand the soundtracks and accompanying narratives developed by the SGT recovery students around the novel,

Killing Mr. Griffin (Duncan, 1978), the unit for the text is explained here. Classroom discussions of that text and activities used during the development of the unit are limited, due, at least in part to the significant amounts of time were used to make certain that all of the students had read the text.

On the first day of the new unit, Mrs. Stanford began by telling the students they were going to be reading Killing Mr. Griffin. She handed out the novels and gave the students an opportunity to look over the book. Then she gave small groups of students a word, printed on a large sheet of white construction paper. These included: PEER

PRESSURE, LEADERSHIP, DEPRESSION, ACCEPTANCE, and REGRET, and

POPULARITY. Each student group was also provided with a stack of magazines. The students were asked to cut and paste pictures and words that they felt were related to their main word, or topic. The teacher stated that after the students completed the task, there would be a brief discussion about the collages, and then they would be collected and put

157

away for future use. The students began their work immediately. I was unable to monitor

all six groups concurrently, so I focused on the small group closest to where I was seated.

There were two males and two females in this group, and their topic word was

ACCEPTANCE:

Student 1: Give me one of them.

Student 2: What d’ya say?

Student 1: Whatever. Please give me one.

(Student 2 tosses a magazine to Student 1.)

Student 2: (holding up a picture of a mother and child) How ‘bout this?

Student 1: Yeah, moms accept their kids.

Student 3: Man, that ain’t what she’s talking about.

Student 2: She said whatever we thought.

Student 3: Didn’t you read the book cover? It’s about killing a teacher.

We’re talking about kids here, like teenagers.

Student 1: We can put some of that on, too.

Student 2: (to Student 2) Cut it. It works.

Student 3: Okay, so how about this? (showing a picture of a young couple

kissing)

Student 4: Yeah, that, too.

Student 3: I was just joking.

Student 1: No. Cut it. When you with somebody like that, they accept you.

Student 3: (laughing) For a while anyway…

(group laughs)

158

Student 4: Yeah, she never said one right picture or word. It’s a collage.

Student 3: We gotta cover the whole paper?

Student 1: I don’t know. But one isn’t gonna work. And acceptance can

mean lots of things to lots of people.

Student 2: Yeah, she’s right. Where’s the glue?

It is noteworthy that, initially, at least one of the students in this group believed

that there was one correct definition of the term they were asked to explore. However,

given the context of the activity—the teacher’s directive to use clippings they felt the

word meant, as well as the need to use multiple pictures and words to cover an entire

sheet—the students concluded that the word must have multiple meanings in varying

situations. This was eventually confirmed during the discussion part of the activity. All

six groups presented an assortment of visual images, related terms, and numerous

interpretations of the assigned word. The teacher discussed the fact that these words have

meanings that people perceive differently, depending on what they were “going through in their own lives.” The students in the group I observed, then, were rewarded for their efforts in filling the paper with various pictures representing an assortment of interpretations of the word. During the rest of the class period, the teacher allowed the students to read aloud from the text in partners or small groups, in order to meet the required reading for the day (the first two chapters).

On the second day of the novel unit, Mrs. Stanford gave the students a short quiz on the assigned reading from the previous day. The questions included lower level thinking inquiries that attempted to establish whether or not the students had completed the first two chapters. The quiz was seven questions long and presented in an oral format.

159

The students were asked to write brief answers to the questions on a piece of loose leaf

paper. The quiz was graded in class and collected “for points.”

The teacher then chose several students to do a role playing activity. Giving each of the chosen students a name that designated a character from the story, the student had to “act like” the character. The character was not permitted to speak, and had to mime a situation in which he or she might find him or herself. The rest of the class was then supposed to guess who the character was. Prior to the activity, the teacher emphasized that the objective of the activity was to show how authors use more than just dialogue to illustrate the personality, motives, interests, and intentions of characters. The teacher emphasized that, by attending to the actions and interpersonal relationships in the text, the students can understand much more about the story. The role play was received enthusiastically by the students, but the teacher showed concern at the volume of the class and threatened to terminate the activity before the last student had an opportunity to complete his pantomime. The class immediately quieted, and the activity continued.

The remainder of the unit involved reading the text (often in class), taking quizzes

on the various reading assignments, and completing the soundtrack-making assignment.

The students were given six days of 60-minute periods each to complete the soundtrack and narratives. The unit culminated with a written, objective test and a presentation of the soundtracks to the class.

The Music

Developing soundtracks. The 21 high school students in the State Graduation Test

recovery class in this study also worked cooperatively in groups of 2-4 to create narrative

soundtracks for a different novel, Killing Mr. Griffin (Duncan, 1978). The seven narrative

160

soundtracks produced by these students were designed according to the specifications of the teacher’s directions (see Appendix N), and resulted in a total of 59 music-text

associations (see Table 5.2), which was comparable to the number of associations

produced by the advanced placement students.

An examination of these soundtracks and associations demonstrated that the SGT

(State Graduation Test) recovery students created soundtracks that utilized a greater

range of responses. Additionally, the responses themselves indicated an increased

willingness to explore the assigned text outside the confines of traditional literary

analysis, as well as an ability to use emotive responses as both a focal point and a means

for exploring the text. Emotive responses, rather than being used simply as a starting point for the traditional literary analysis, were considered ends in and of themselves. This is exemplified by the fact that more than half of the associations generated by the students in the narrative part of the soundtrack were constructing and engaging (refer to table 4.2).

Table 5.2 Totals of Connection Categories for “struggling” students

Connection Categories # of times used Constructing 21 Engaging 17 Analyzing 10 Intertextualizing 4 Connecting 4 Imaging 4

Constructing, as discussed above, involved looking beyond what was overtly written in the novel. Although this association was embedded in literary analysis, it

required an ability to create and enter into an alternative world—a world that moved

161

further than what is explicitly indicated on the written page. Students utilizing this connection often demonstrated an understanding of characters, events, and even plot before they moved beyond that analysis toward a more abstract conceptualization of those story elements.

One example of constructing as a transmedial connection cames from the student authors of the third soundtrack in the SGT recovery class. Orlando, Emmett, Christopher, and Ian were the members of this group. Orlando, the self-proclaimed class “entertainer,” and Emmett were best friends and members of the school’s varsity football team. Both boys were happy and talkative students. Christopher and Ian were soft-spoken young men who explained that they preferred “hanging out” to getting involved in school-sponsored activities. This group wrote:

We chose the song “It’s Going Down” by yung joc for the scene where the group

had established plans to kidnap Mr. Griffin. We chose this song because when

people use the phrase “it’s going down” it usually means that something big

or important is about to happen. So when they had finished making their plans for

the kidnapping, they probably sat around and told one another that the plan “is

going down.”

The students in this group started out by sharing their knowledge of the text, showing that they knew about the manner in which the characters had conspired together and developed a plan to kidnap their English teacher, Mr. Griffin. Then they moved just beyond the title and lyrics of the song in order to enter a less confined space that is neither the textual world nor is explicitly the students’ world. In this space, students are able to think more abstractly and to verbalize understandings they have about the

162

connection: “…when people use the phrase…it usually means that something big or

important is about to happen….” In this way, the transmedial connection was utilized not

only as a means to provide evidence that the scene has been appropriately interpreted, but

exhibited an understanding of some figures of speech that were recognized by their peers

and teacher.

Used almost as frequently as constructing is engaging, which was an association

where the students become emotionally involved in the story. Engaging was often

demonstrated by empathizing with particular characters or identifying with an event in

the story. Engaging, as noted above, was an association that was absent on the

soundtracks designed by the advanced placement students. The SGT student authors of

the fourth soundtrack identify with the English teacher’s widow, Mrs. Griffin, as they

note:

We chose [the song] “Angels among Us” to fit the character of Mrs. Griffin who

is married with Mr. Griffin and pregnant with his child. The reason why we chose

this beautiful song is because she is going through a terribly hard time, she is

pregnant by the man she loves more than anything in the world, and she can’t find

him…She will have to go through a lot of obstacles with her pregnancy and

worrying about her husband. She is hoping she can get through these times,

wishing to god, and praying that “there are angels among her, sent down to her

from somewhere up above” to help her and her unborn child.

The students utilized the lyrics from the song as a means for delving deeper into

the imagined thinking of the character of Mrs. Griffin. In doing so, the students showed their ability to emotionally connect, to empathize with the character in the text, to think

163

about her actions, motivations, and concerns beyond the simple breaking down of the text

into its literary components.

The third association, analyzing, as was evidenced by Tom, Lindy, and Tara (the

advanced placement student authors of the first soundtrack) was most often used to provide “proof” that the students had accurately read, appropriately examined, and completely comprehended certain aspects of the text. Far fewer examples of this type of connection were found the soundtracks of the SGT recovery students (approximately

16% of total associations). Orlando, Emmett, Christopher, and Ian, the student authors of the third soundtrack in the SGT recovery class utilized analyzing in the following way:

The reason we used Beyonce’s “Ring the Alarm” for Betsy, Susan, and Mark’s

love triangle is because Betsy was starting to get jealous of Susan because Mark

was starting to take care of Susan and basically being her man. On page 137 Betsy

says, “Oh, I’m sure she is. So nice she can’t dirty her hands…all she can do is sit

on her ass and cry and slouch all over Mark’s shirtfront.” This scene relates to the

song because Beyonce says, “I’ll be damned if I see another chick on your arm.”

In this particular example, the SGT recovery students not only made an analyzing

association where they examined the interrelatedness of characters, they also

intertextualized. In connecting the phrase from the novel “…all she can do is sit…and

cry and slouch all over Mark’s shirtfront” to the lyrics of the musical composition

“…another chick on your arm,” the students associated the words of the two texts in

order to draw parallels and deepen the meaning of both passages. It was significant to

note that, while the advanced students make text-to-text connections almost 25% of the

time, the SGT students, however, utilized intertextualizing infrequently.

164

The last two associations, connecting and imaging, were noted on the seventh

soundtrack created by the SGT recovery student authors Kent, Jeremy, and Nathan.

These authors, as they explained to me later, had been friends since childhood. Having attended a local parochial school from first through eighth grades together, they moved to the public high school and currently attended many of the same classes. While none of them were active in school activities or sports, these three students spent a great deal of

time after school together—drawing graphic novels and listening to the radio. These students utilized connecting, which involved the association of experience and personal

understandings to the characters, events, or settings of the text. On the second song of

their narrative soundtrack, these students related the song, “Path” by Apocalyptica to the

scene where Mr. Griffin is buried. The students write:

“Path” is an appropriate song for the funeral of Mr. Griffin because it has no

lyrics, is played by eerie and sad sounding instruments, and brings a kind of dark

feeling to the funeral. When someone is buried like when we’re at a funeral,

everyone was silent usually while music is played. So a song with no lyrics is

violin are played throughout the song. It makes it seem as if we are at a sad and

eerie event. The song’s mood is dark which is great for a scene where everyone is

feeling guilty, sad, and frightened at what they were doing or had done.

In this example of connecting, students drew upon their personal experiences of

funeral and burials, including the types of music heard there. They chose a song they felt

would be appropriate for the memorial service scene from the novel. The association is

not only appropriate, but extremely well articulated through the analysis of the

composition’s tone, theme, and even instrumentation.

165

The same three student authors also utilized imaging. This association occurred

when students were able to verbalize what they “see” in their mind’s eye as they were

reading. Kent, Jeremy, and Nate used a song by Thousandfootcrutch to project a visual

representation of the antagonist in the story, Mark, who is the student primarily

responsible for the kidnapping and death of Mr. Griffin. The student authors stated:

We chose a song to represent Mark Kinney based on his personality, his actions in

the book, and other details that describe him. We chose “Puppets” because he is a

manipulator, aggressive, and doesn’t care about rules or authority. Throughout the

book he uses his influence over the other students to accomplish his goals…like a

puppet is hanging on strings doing what the puppet holder wants. Like when he

convinced them [the other students] to kidnap Mr. Griffin and when he persuaded

them to cover up his death. The song says “everybody shake your body, lift your

hands, your just a puppet.” The song fits perfectly.

In using this song and describing the pictures of Mark as a master puppeteer that

they had conceived in their heads, the students explained clearly how they “saw” Mark as

the person who is instigating, controlling, and manipulating the other students (the

puppets) in the text. This type of association showed an ability to articulate thinking that

was deeper and more meaningful than a simple regurgitation of literary elements such as

setting, plot, and characterization.

Utilizing music. Students in the SGT recovery class perceived the activity differently. These students appeared to have less interest in providing “proof” to their teacher that they had read and analyzed Killing Mr. Griffin (Duncan, 1978); instead, these students were more concerned about using the activity as a forum for collaboratively

166

exploring both the music and the text within the context of their own group, as well as between and among the groups. The soundtrack-making process and the writing of the narratives were perceived by the SGT recovery students as an opportunity to present themselves as both readers of texts and listeners of music. All seven soundtracks developed by the SGT students were representative of their “real selves” both in and out of class where emphasis was placed on not only students’ personal or emotional reactions to the text, but also their areas of music interest.

The authors of the seventh soundtrack were Kent, Jeremy, and Nathan. These students, as an example, came to class the first day of the soundtrack-making process without CDs in hand; each had thought the others were going to bring the CDs. Since they had no music to initiate the process, they decided to sit at the computers in order to look at lyrics. They began the following exchange:

Nathan: (laughing) I thought you clowns was bringin’ the CDs.

Kent: Yeah, ok.

Nathan: So what we got?

Kent: (looking at the computer) Finding a site for lyrics.

Jeremy: We know what we’re looking for?

Nathan: (talking to members of another group on an adjacent computer) What

you guys looking for?

Group member: Nothin’. Skimmin’ the net. Try this site (points to screen)

Kent (leaning over): Think they’ll have like Broadway stuff on there? Play stuff?

Group member: I dunno.

Nathan: Broadway stuff? Like what? Who listens to that? You?

167

Kent: I dunno…just an idea. But yeah, I listen to lots of stuff.

Nathan: For real?

Kent: Yeah, for real. It’s..it’s…

Nathan: No, no, man. It’s all good. Ok. What you thinking?

Kent: For real. You know, they like kidnapped the teacher. Like in this one

play a ghost kidnaps a singer, an opera singer, I think…

Jeremy: Hey, yeah, yeah. I know that one. Didn’t it…he wasn’t a ghost, though,

so we talking one of the characters or for a scene?

Kent: I dunno. Depends, I guess.

Nathan: Depends… well, like what you thinking, KC?

Jeremy: (laughing) K-Ci?

Nathan: Nah, man. K dot, C dot.

Jeremy: (still laughing) I know, I know. But yeah, ok

Kent: So I’m thinking the music is full of words but not like K-Ci & Jo Jo crap

But I don’t know if anyone but us’ll get it?

Group member (leaning over): If you explain it, even dumb asses like us’ll get it.

…and don’t be ragging on K-Ci (laughing)

Three things were significant to note in this dialogue. To begin with, this excerpt showed one of many examples of the increased cooperation between and among the groups in the SGT recovery classes. During the development of the soundtracks within the classroom context, students showed interest in discussing their ideas not only with their own group members, but also in getting information and sharing their thoughts with other groups. Situations like the one illustrated above, where one group offered support to

168

another, tendered comments, or even gave explicit directions (“Try this site”) were not uncommon. There was more physical movement about the classroom, more sharing of resources (CDs and computers, specifically), and louder, more boisterous discourse.

Secondly, students in the SGT recovery classes appeared to be less concerned about providing “proof” to their teacher and getting the project finished, and more concerned about making certain that their thoughts and feelings were going to be understood by their peers. In fact, five of the seven soundtracks collected from the SGT recovery classes were missing one or more sections of the assignment—including soundtracks without copies of lyrics, incomplete (or absent) summaries, incorrect numbers of scene or character choices, as well as soundtracks without cover art, song lists, or original songs (refer to Appendix I).

Third, and perhaps most striking, the members of the group appeared much more aware and even respectful of one another’s thinking and interests. While Tara and Lindy in the advanced placement group completely overlooked Tom’s rumination (“He reminds me of me…”), Nathan and Jeremy appear attuned to and even intrigued by Kent’s interest in and knowledge of Phantom of the Opera. Rather than terminating Kent’s cognitive processing by talking over him or cutting short his musings by making fun, they actually encouraged him by saying, “No…it’s all good. What you thinking?” and “…yeah, I know that one…”

Despite the fact that the assignments were essentially the same, students in the

SGT recovery class and advanced placement students had different goals in mind. While the task of connecting appropriate music and elements of the literary text was also fluid and not linear in the SGT recovery class (similar to the earlier finding in the honors

169

class), students indicated that they generally allowed “what was gonna happen, happen”

in making the soundtrack. Their objective was not to create a final product, but to enjoy

the activity itself. When asked how their group got started in the development of the

narrative soundtrack, students stated that they started in many of the same ways as the

honors students: they brought CDs or iPods to class; they browsed song titles or lyrics on

the internet; they considered scenes they found exciting or characters that were compelling; they looked at their favorite bands or songs.

An interesting thing to note was that several SGT recovery student groups

emphasized that they did nothing in preparation for that first classroom period, except

bring a few CDs in some cases, because they wanted to “keep it real” with the group.

When asked what “keeping it real” meant in this context, students responded by saying

that they wanted each group member to “stick with his own thing” by “having his own

stuff on the soundtrack.” Students indicated that “keeping it real” meant that they did not

“sell out” by being “fake” or by “giving in to hype”—which meant using only the music

that was popular or acceptable. It was important, these students indicated, that they “stay

true to” themselves by “being authentic” and not “pretending to be what you’re not.”

These students felt as if they had used more class time for discussing the music than

writing the narratives and for negotiating song choices than choosing scenes from the text.

The Curricular Conversation

Perceptions of authenticity. Students in the State Graduation Test recovery class

completely concurred regarding the efficacy of the soundtrack-making activity. Within

individual groups and among them, students agreed that the activity helped them

170

negotiate meaning from Killing Mr. Griffin (Duncan, 1978), as well as explore their own

personal thinking about both the text and the music used to represent the text. Bryan, for

example, from the second soundtrack-making group, indicated that he felt that making

the soundtrack “helped [him] remember important things that happened in the book for

the final” because his group had talked so much about different scenes as they made choices for the soundtrack. Ian, from the third group, agreed, saying that “you got to get

inside your group’s head about the action parts of the story.” Neither Bryan nor Ian

suggested that the soundtrack was an assessment itself.

Also from the third group, Emmett stated that the soundtrack-making process gave them a chance to get to know to the characters better because the group discussions

weren’t just about what the characters did in the story, “but who they were, like if they were alive and breathing and in your class.” Beth and Kayla from the fourth group also focused on the importance of the process in helping their group understand the characters better. Beth and Kayla reported that their group had spent one class period playing a game they called “WWYD.” WWYD is an acronym for “What would you do” and it is played by inserting a person’s name, e.g. “What would you do if you were Mrs.

Griffin…” and then providing each member of the group with an opportunity to finish the phrase. These female students stated that their group played the game for almost every character in the text, and it was this process that helped them articulate their thinking for the character part of the soundtrack-making activity. It is interesting to note that this particular group’s finished soundtrack was marked “incomplete” by the teacher because it included only one scene rather than the required three scenes, and contained four character analyses instead of the requisite two (refer to Appendix N).

171

The students in all seven groups agreed that the project was enjoyable, “except for the writing part,” which many students conceded was sometimes difficult, both from a mechanical point of view (capitalization, punctuation, spelling, etc.) and from a conceptual aspect (articulating clearly one’s thinking, finding the right words, etc.).

Orlando, from the third group, said he felt that although his class had done few projects in this particular English class, the soundtrack-making activity was “the best, maybe even better than all the other things” he’s done, even in other courses.

The students disagreed, however, about how the activity “fit” into the course. A

few students in the SGT recovery class indicated that they believed it was an assessment.

These students pointed, as evidence of this thinking, to the “reminder” section of the

directions for making the soundtrack where it says “…we take this project seriously and it will weight heavily on your final grade.” More students, however, felt that the teacher

“just wrote that” as a type of warning to the “screw-ups in the class who never take any

work seriously.” These students tended to believe that, based on the teacher’s

introduction of the activity to the class, the directions were more like flexible guidelines,

and that the activity was a chance to explore their understanding of the story, take the initiative in leading discussions the way the teacher does, and “bring some of [their] real life” to bear on the classroom learning. When asked why they believed this, students indicated that, if the teacher had wanted a more formal presentation of knowledge, she would have either chosen a “more normal activity” like writing a five-paragraph essay or book report, the kind of writing that was being “drilled into our skulls for the [State

Graduation] Test coming up in a few months.” Students also felt that, had the teacher wanted something specific, she would have told them explicitly “what kind of music we

172

were allowed to use.” Students saw the opportunity to bring in their own CDs and utilize

class time for the project as direct indicators of the teacher’s desire to “keep it real.”

All seven groups reported completing almost the entire project in the class periods set aside for the activity, and stated that almost the entire project was completed in a collaborative way. The only part of the soundtrack-making process completed outside of class was the cover art that was usually done by the most artistic person in the group and typing of the narratives that was assigned to the “fastest typer of us all” (although three of the groups chose to turn in handwritten narratives). It was interesting to note that, even though a vast majority of the soundtrack was completed in class and several groups had sections or pieces of the soundtrack or narrative missing, none of the groups complained that the amount of class time set aside for working on the project—six days of 60-minute periods each—was insufficient to allow them to engage in the process. When asked what they would have done had they been given more time, Jessica (fourth soundtrack group member) said that she thought her group would have “listened to more music and talked about more stuff,” but that her group’s soundtrack project would probably not have turned out much differently because everyone in her group was content “with what we’d done with it [the soundtrack].”

Cross Case Comparison

An examination of the products developed by both classes in this study indicated several important distinctions between the soundtracks developed by the advanced placement/honors students and those created by the SGT recovery students (see Table

5.3). While the honors students created soundtracks that were primarily a clinical examination of the text and utilized associations most closely related to traditional

173

literary analysis, the SGT recovery students utilized a greater range of responses that indicated an increased willingness to entertain more personal and emotive responses.

The SGT recovery students explored the assigned text outside the confines of traditional

literary analysis, including emotional responses to the text and descriptions of aesthetic

aspects of the music, evidence of which was indicated in the classroom observations. The

honors students, however, did not include the artistic elements of musical compositions in

their soundtrack narratives, although observations of the soundtrack-making activity

indicated that this was an initial consideration in the choice of music. Honors students

also did not utilize more emotional responses to their text in the narrative-writing part of

the soundtrack-making activity.

Table 5.3 Cross Case Analysis

Honors Students SGT recovery students Soundtracks were primarily Soundtracks utilized a an analysis of literary elements greater range of responses Soundtracks interpreted as Soundtrack-making activity viewed an assessment-oriented task (product) as collaborative and authentic activity (process) Students provided “best work” Students were “true to self” Emotional or experiential responses Emotional and experiential often discarded during the activity responses explored Music aesthetics considered during Music aesthetics considered and activity, but not addressed in addressed in soundtrack narratives soundtracks Narrowly interpreted the written Used a broader interpretation of the directions of the activity; provided activity; several groups submitted complete versions of the soundtrack incomplete versions of soundtrack

The soundtrack-making process, although it was fluid for both classes, was

perceived differently by the advanced placement students and the SGT recovery students.

The honors students considered the activity as a forum for presenting their best work to

174

the teacher. The emphasis was on the product—an artifact that was seen as a type of

assessment where it was not appropriate to consider either personal reactions to the text

or feelings about the music. While there was some negotiation in the soundtrack-making

process, most of the honors students’ discourse focused on mutually interpreting the

directions of the assignment and defining the terms of the project.

Students in the SGT recovery class, however, were more interested in the

soundtrack-making process. They were less inclined to substantiate an analysis of the

literary text in written form, and in many cases, expressed personal reactions to and

descriptions of the music. The students in this class also negotiated aspects of the

soundtrack-making process, but rather than looking inward at the directions and terms of the teacher-provided assignment sheet, students collaboratively and cooperatively explored their roles as music listeners and text readers within the groups and between them.

While the students in both classes took pleasure in making the soundtrack and

counted it among the most enjoyable activities the class had completed, students in the

honors class felt that the most important part of doing the project was “getting it right,”

due in great part to the students’ belief that the activity would be assessed and counted

toward their grade. This conviction appeared to be rooted in the fact that most classroom

discussions in the enacted curriculum revolved around a traditional analysis of the text,

focused on characterization, setting, and literary devices. The students in the SGT

recovery class disagreed, however, about how the activity fit into course design and met

course objectives. While some felt that the activity could be an assessment, more students

believed that the activity was a chance to explore the story, lead discussions, and “keep it

175

real” by using authentic music from their lives outside of the classroom. Their perception

of the activity appeared consistent with the teacher’s assertion that the SGT recovery

students needed to see themselves as successful readers and proficient writers who should be afforded opportunities value literacy tasks in both school activities and their lives outside of the classroom.

While the activity guidelines set forth by the teacher were very similar (refer to

Appendices M and N), there were many differences in the resulting soundtracks and

narratives produced by the two classes, as well as variations in the process undertaken by

the students as they generated those soundtracks. Additionally, students’ perceptions of the activity were dissimilar. The explanation offered here is that the findings varied by achievement group due to a contrast in the curricular conversations of the two classrooms. The analyses of the data revealed that the students’ perceptions of the soundtrack-making activity were visibly linked to the curricular conversations enacted in the classroom. Although the teacher’s planned curriculum was not always consistently

enacted in the classrooms, the curricular conversations that did take place visibly affected

the students’ perception of the activity. The students in the advanced placement class, for

example, saw the soundtrack and narrative activity as an extension of the kind of

analytical behaviors undertaken in the classroom, even though the teacher had indicated

that her main desire was that the students link their classroom experience and lived

experiences outside of the school. While the teacher wanted the advanced placement

students to view the activities as an opportunity to enrich and explore their understanding

of texts, the students themselves perceived the soundtrack-making activity as an

assessment of their ability to engage in the types of discussions regularly enacted in the

176

classroom. One of the results of their understanding of the activity, placed now in the

curricular context, was that the advanced placement students spent a great deal of time,

effort, and energy on the development of accurate and analytical soundtrack products.

The SGT recovery students perceived the soundtrack activity in light of the

curriculum planned by their teacher, who enacted a course that attempted to assist

students in viewing themselves as authentic readers and writers. Thus, the State

Graduation Test recovery class approached the activity as a collaboration that could be used to explore emotive understandings, as well as overall comprehension of the text. As

a result, the SGT recovery students were more focused on a cooperative process, where

the completion of the soundtrack itself was perceived as less important than the

collaboration involved in creating it.

Based on the analyses of the data gathered from the interviews, field notes, and

soundtracks, two clear categories emerged. The advanced placement students were

committed to the development of a detail-oriented and accurate product (soundtrack),

while the SGT recovery students were more focused on the process of cooperation and

collaboration in the classroom context. Chapter Six will look at the findings presented in

the last two chapters in light of the existing research. Additionally, this final chapter will discuss the implications of this research for both future educational research and the more practical aspects of pedagogical and curricular planning.

177

Chapter Six

If I had to live my life over again, I would have made a rule to read some poetry and listen to some music at least once a week; for perhaps the parts of my brain now atrophied would have thus been kept active through use. The loss of these tastes is a loss of happiness, and may possibly be injurious to the intellect, and more probably, to the moral character, by enfeebling the emotional part of our nature. -Descartes

Findings and Implications

This chapter returns to the questions posed at the beginning of the study, situating

the findings of this study within the context of other educational research. This

examination is divided into two sections. One segment looks at the soundtrack issues in

light of the field views; the second considers curricular issues. Following this discussion,

I conclude the chapter by looking at the limitations of my study, as well as both research

and pedagogical implications.

Discussion of Issues

Soundtrack Issues

The first question posed in this study considered what would happen when

students were encouraged to create musical soundtracks. Specifically, I attempted to find

out how musical compositions and musical texts were utilized during the meaning-

making process of creating musical soundtracks.

Because many of the student groups wrote narratives that made connections between the lyrics of the song and the writing of the text, it was not completely apparent

in the artifacts (soundtracks and narratives) that the students, at least initially and

verbally, fully considered the aesthetics of the music when choosing songs for their

soundtracks. During observations, however, it was obvious that both the honors students

178

and the students in the SGT recovery class listened to many songs before including any

one particular song on their soundtracks. The students considered the appropriateness of

the song for the character or the scene, and usually this decision was rooted in the music

composition itself, not in the lyrics alone. If, for example, the song title and the lyrics of a

particular song were fitting for Mr. Griffin’s funeral scene, but the tune itself was upbeat

and lively, the SGT students discarded the song in favor of something slower or more somber. Another example of the importance of music aesthetics was the honors students’

choice of “Down by the Bay” for the character of Phoebe. There was nothing in the lyrics

of the song to suggest its suitability for a young girl, but the advanced placement students

chose it because it represented to them a sign of childhood, a jump rope song that was

both “playful” and “happy.” Thus, transmediation during meaning-making was often

more apparent in the process of choosing the songs, evidenced during classroom

observations, than in the artifacts eventually produced and submitted by the students.

The second research question asked what the students’ perceptions regarding the

utility of alternative response activities were with regard to meaning-making aspects of

reading literary texts. The findings appear to indicate that the students’ perception of the utility and importance of the soundtrack-making activity was rooted in their awareness and understanding of the larger, ongoing curricular conversation designed and implemented by Mrs. Stanford.

The honors students, for example, spent less time pooling resources and

negotiating meaning during the activity, choosing instead to invest far more time

completing the product. Observations of the class during the study revealed that the

honors students perceived the soundtrack-making activity not only as an opportunity to

179

present that analysis, but an obligation to do so in a format that was recognizable and

acceptable to their teacher. The differentiation between opportunity and obligation was

significant because it pointed to the students’ perception of the activity’s dual purpose— first, as an appropriate occasion to exhibit an understanding of the text and secondly, as a

responsibility to provide that evidence in a particular manner.

To begin with, the soundtrack-making opportunity was a chance, an “opening,” of

sorts, for the students to explore their thinking about the text. While there were guidelines

provided for the development of the soundtrack and narrative, there was flexibility and

freedom within those guidelines. The students could, conceivably, have chosen any

number of settings, characters, and events to represent in their narratives. They could

have also chosen to explore more emotional reactions to the musical compositions or

looked introspectively at the reading event itself and its impact on their thinking,

believing, or feeling. However, while the advanced placement students showed a

propensity for more emotive responses during observations of the soundtrack making

process (such as the consideration of the mood of a song or empathy that they might feel

for a character), the advanced placement students did not extensively explore the

emotions they experienced as a result of the song or the text. Instead, these responses

were abandoned in favor of responses that focused on less subjective and more easily

identifiable literary elements. Thus, the students used this opportunity to present their understanding of the more technical aspects of the text. As such, the soundtrack-making activity was also viewed as an obligation, a responsibility to provide to the teacher an interpretation of the text that was consistent with the types of textual analyses that had been undertaken in the classroom.

180

The advanced placement students, then, did not exhibit associations that indicated

a willingness to visualize or empathize with the characters, to imagine what the scenes

looked like, to judge the value of their reading experiences, or to evaluate the text itself or

the ways in which the text affected them. Instead, the students focused their attention on

objective information such as literary elements to be retained and the action (i.e., writing

the soundtrack narrative) to be performed. The associations that were presented in the

soundtracks created by the advanced placement students were consistent with the type of

reading that Rosenblatt (1978) termed efferent. In an efferent reading, the attention of the

reader “is focused primarily on what will remain as the residue after reading—the

information to be acquired, the logical solution to the problem, the actions to be carried

out” (p. 23). This is evidenced in the fact that the students, despite their initial inclination

to entertain more personal responses, discarded them in favor of responses that focused

on discernible literary elements. In doing so, the students disengaged their text-reading

attention as much as possible from the personal and qualitative elements of response to

the symbols on the page, and, instead, concentrated on what those symbols designated.

The focus, then, was on what those symbols would contribute to the end result—in this case, the end result was the literary analysis in the form of a product, i.e., the soundtrack and narrative.

This finding is consistent with Applebee’s (1993) discovery that teachers of

higher track classes, such as advanced placement and honors English courses, were more

likely to emphasize close textual analyses, rather than focus on personal student

responses. Applebee argued that teachers in such classrooms spent a majority of

instructional time attempting to develop in their students the analytic skills and

181

specialized knowledge they believed to be necessary for investigations of literature. In

fact, teachers regularly utilized response activities primarily as a means to motivate and

engage students prior to a customary literary analysis. Like the advanced placement

classroom examined in this study, the classrooms studied by Applebee illustrated that

literary instruction in U. S. schools remains focused on efferent and analytical responses.

A usual lesson in such a classroom is one in which students are asked to focus on the literature through a “teacher-led whole-class discussion that tries to meld their individual understandings into an acceptable, commonly agreed upon whole” (Applebee, 1993, p.

194). Such an activity may allow students to fully and thoughtfully engage with the text, but it may also create a situation where students perceive literature-reading as a problem-

or puzzle-solving venture.

The question, then, is why the advanced placement students, who showed an ability to move toward an aesthetic response to the text, chose not to investigate it. The

answer lies in the curricular conversations that were conducted in the classrooms, and responds directly to the third question posed by the study. The honors students, in fact, did not perceive a direct association between these activities and the curricular

conversation that the teacher believed she was conducting during the course of the academic semester. In fact, the students often found the collaborative period during which these activities occurred disconnected from the business of literary analysis that occurred during the core.

The reasons for this are many and require a look at the many layers of curricular

organization and implementation. At the highest level of curricular planning, the school administrators of this secondary school indicated that they embraced a schedule and a

182

philosophy that supported the use of various methods and materials. However, such a concept was difficult to implement completely at the classroom level. Mrs. Stanford, the teacher in this study, attempted to develop an advanced placement class that valued alternative response activities, encouraged student engagement with the text, and accepted a wide range of student responses. Yet, the realization that the advanced placement students would require certain types of knowledge, skills, and reading experiences, not only for the imminent advanced placement test, but also postsecondary work, influenced the actual implementation and eventual effectiveness of such planning.

The teacher’s personal interest in “enriching” and “memorable” methods where students

“actively create” rather than “passively absorb” were not easily reconciled with the eventual requirements of college coursework in literary analysis. This postsecondary work would likely include traditional literary analysis where, as Rosenblatt (1978) asserted,

Critical theory and practice both suffer from failure to recognize that the reader

carries on a dynamic, personal, and unique activity. Many contemporary critics

and teachers evidently think they are being “objective” when they discuss

identifiable elements of the text. They do not include in their theoretical

assumptions recognition of the fact that even the most objective analysis of “the

poem” is an analysis of the work as they themselves have called it forth.

Like Rosenblatt, Greene (1995) has argued that the “dominant voices [in pedagogical planning] are still those of the officials who assume the objective worth of certain kinds of knowledge” (p. 9). As a result, the students were limited in their ability to voice their own reactions to the literature, to determine what their educational needs

183

were, and to affect true change in classroom design and implementation. Teachers, like

the one in this study, often find that it is difficult, even impossible, to “devise situations in which the young will move from the habitual and the ordinary and consciously undertake a search” (p. 24) for personal meaning, despite the teacher’s commitment to educational planning designed to promote personal connections to the text. In fact, the large-scale surveys and classroom observations conducted by Applebee (1993) support the contention that it remains “relatively rare” to find teaching in secondary English classrooms that truly encourages students “to develop and defend their own interpretations” (p. 195) of literature, despite an abundance of small group work, creative activities, and writing assignments that appear open-ended and student-centered.

In many cases, the curricula designed by teachers of literature are also affected by

assessment measures (Applebee, 1994b) utilized in the educational realm. Traditional

classroom assessments utilized in English language arts courses, as well as standardized

evaluative measures, focus attention on indirect measures of reading and writing

performance. These include word knowledge, sentence structure, and technical skills

such as the utilization of punctuation and capitalization rules. As a result, teachers often

decide to emphasize product-related skills, rather than the process-oriented proficiencies

encouraged by educational reformers (Applebee, 1994b, p. 42). Compounding this issue

is national legislation that mandates accountability measures and affects the ways in

which teachers choose the methods and materials necessary for instruction (Burroughs &

Smagorinsky, in press).

In looking again at the second question, this time for the SGT recovery students, it

is apparent that, because their focus was on collaboration during the activity, they

184

considered the soundtrack-making project a critical part of negotiating meaning from the text. The SGT recovery students indicated that discussing the text with their peers via musical compositions allowed them to know the story characters better and recall scenes from the text, as well as provide reactions to and receive feedback from their classmates.

Thus, the activity allowed students to relate to the text and live through the experience of reading the text. Thus, while the advanced placement students did not consistently consider the artistic elements of musical compositions in their soundtrack narratives or utilize emotional responses to their text, the State Graduation Test (SGT) recovery students utilized a larger array of responses that included more personal reactions to the text and indicated an increased willingness to entertain more emotive responses.

The SGT recovery students explored the assigned text outside the confines of traditional literary analysis, including emotional responses to the text and descriptions of artistic aspects of the music. The associations on their soundtracks were more consistent with the kind of reading Rosenblatt (1978) called an aesthetic reading. In an aesthetic reading, the readers’ main concern is with “what happens during the actual reading event” (p. 24), what the readers actually experienced as they read, and what they were living through during their relationship with the particular text. Rather than looking specifically at what would be the result of the reading, the readers’ principal purpose is fulfilled during the reading event itself, permitting a “whole range of responses generated by the text to enter into the center of awareness,” out of which the reader chooses and merges what he perceives of the text into a “literary work of art” (p. 28).

Because of their willingness to focus attention on the reading event itself, the SGT recovery students were able to incorporate life experiences, past understandings, and the

185

emotional aspects of the reading transaction into the making of the soundtracks. The more personal nature of aesthetic response allowed the SGT recovery students to perceive the writing of the narratives and creation of soundtracks as an opportunity to present themselves as both readers of texts and listeners of music. Rather than stepping back from the reading and reporting “objective” facts about the text, the SGT recovery students revealed more intimate reactions to the reading event itself. This was evidenced by the fact that all seven soundtracks developed by the SGT students provided at least one insight into what the students termed their “real selves” both in and out of class. Students linked their life experiences, interpretations, memories, and feelings to the text-reading experience through the music medium. They included examples of their own life situations, as well as personal feelings about the music and individual reactions to the text. In doing so, these students became active learners in search of meaning, both of the text and of self. They were, as Greene (1995) suggested, “learners as distinctive, questioning persons—persons in the process of defining themselves” (p. 13).

The issue of defining self and determining a personal identity in reading is significant and relates to the third question posed by the study. The SGT recovery students perceived a direct association between these response activities and the rest of the classroom discourse because it was embedded in an ongoing conversation about the students’ development of a positive identity as a reader, an ability for students to see themselves as “successful readers and writers.” As Comber and Cormack (1997) suggested, literacy cannot be considered as a fixed set of universal skills, and as a result, what constitutes a definition of reader must also be flexible, depending on the ways in which people are able to utilize these literate behaviors in purposeful, meaningful

186

activities in the context of their lived experiences. While the SGT recovery students

experienced difficulty in passing the standardized test for graduation, many of these

“struggling” students, in fact, exhibited a remarkable capacity for literate behavior in

non-educational contexts and, as this study revealed, through the use of classroom

activities the students viewed as “authentic” and “real,” i.e. consistent with their out-of-

school lives. As Moje, Dillon, and O’Brien (2000) have argued, the learners’ beliefs

about their roles in the learning process and the “ways of knowing and doing outside of

the content” (p.1) are important factors in determining the effectiveness of literacy

instruction and the impact of specific reading events on learners.. Thus, “text, context,

and learner cannot be considered independent of one another” (p. 16) because the identities of the students both shape and are shaped by the meaning they make of the text, as well as the ways in which they are positioned in the classroom and perceived by the

teachers.

Williams (2004) suggested that teachers usually prefer efferent reading stances

over aesthetic ones, and this assertion is supported by the fact that the personal responses

demonstrated by the SGT recovery students were not valued by the teacher as highly as

analytical ones. Qualities such as intensity, focus, and a “detached, analytical position”

(Williams, 2004, p. 687) are seen as positive attributes in students and are rewarded in a

variety of ways in the classroom. Those students who are viewed as most successful are

the ones able to appropriate and utilize the types of literacy practices that are consistent

with the teacher’s definition of a reader. Students unable or unwilling to engage in

interrogative, analytical, and demonstrative literacy behaviors consistent with the

teachers’ perspective are often viewed as incapable learners or poor readers.

187

Perpetuating educators’ preference for efferent response over aesthetic response is

the fact that educational theory has done little to combine cognition and affect. Many

empirical studies in music education, for example, as well as essays and articles regarding music teaching and learning, proliferate the idea that music listening and learning is less a cognitive activity than an emotional and affective one (Bresler, 2005).

In our contemporary period of high-stakes testing and as a result of the call for accountability in the teaching of basic academic skills, music and the other fine arts are often seen as an entertaining diversion from the rigors of true learning, and, as a result, are often perceived as superfluous. Eisner (1990) indicated that the arts have generally

assumed a subservient position in traditional classrooms, left to the end of the day or the

end of the week when thinking is less likely than feeling. Eisner’s argument was that the

arts are demoted to these times because it is believed that the children are too tired to do

the important, more academic subjects.

The impact of this on literacy education can be seen in a recent article by Caswell

(2005). In this piece, the author suggested that the words of a text alone were insufficient

to inspire in his students the appropriate emotion, as well as the cognition implied and

intended by the author. Caswell chose compositions by artists such as John Denver, Barry

Manilow, Cher, and Vanessa Williams to evoke “emotion, engagement, and

comprehension” (p. 63) in students he believed would be less likely to understand the

motive of a character or the serenity of a setting. Caswell argued that the music allowed

the students to approach the text with a deeper understanding and renewed perspective.

He indicated that music was more than a fun diversion; it was an instructional tool that

promoted understanding and motivation.

188

There are two problems with Caswell’s (2005) article related to the discussion

here. First, the author’s underlying assumption was that music was primarily aesthetically useful, a means to intensify the students’ experience of literature. Its emotional appeal was utilized to motivate students to engage in a more aesthetic reading, but only insofar

as it would lead to a fuller, more accurate efferent reading (Rosenblatt, 1978). The feeling

inspired by the music and the potential aesthetic reading of the literature were not seen as

ends in and of themselves. The lived-through experience of literature was simply not

sufficient. In order to be valued, the emotional and aesthetic must direct the students to an

objective and critical “truth” about the literary text itself.

Secondly, the music was chosen by the teacher, not by the students. As such, the

music was not necessarily reflective of the students’ out-of-school lives and personal

musical experiences; the students, then, were not provided a true opportunity to be active

meaning-makers. Instead, they were led, by virtue of the teacher’s understanding of and

connection with the music, to the type of literary understanding that was predetermined

by the teacher. The music chosen was connected not only to the teacher’s perception of what the students ought to obtain from the text and the music, but was associated with the teacher’s definition of what it means to be a reader of text and a listener of music.

Students themselves, then, may not share teachers’ perceptions of what constitutes

a reader. While educational institutions connect reading to the demonstration of skills and assessment of knowledge, many students see reading as an aspect of the larger culture—

“a matter of pleasure and play and often a communal activity to be shared with parents and friends” (Williams, 2004, p. 687). This disconnect grows wider, according to

Williams, as children move through the educational system. Many students submit to the

189

institutional definitions of what constitutes literacy and “stop regarding their vernacular

literacy practices as those of a reader,” (p. 687) choosing to assume the stance valued by

their teachers. These students are, in return, perceived then as effective readers. Those

who do not acquiesce to the abandonment of colloquial or everyday literacy practices are

eventually seen as unsuccessful or unproductive readers (Gallas & Smagorinksy, 2002)

and disillusioned or disconnected learners (Applebee, 1996). What is more, Alvermann

(2001) has suggested that labeling is not always based solely on the demonstration of

literacy skills. Appearances (clothing, hair, posture, and attitude) are also used to

determine the types of labels that are affixed to these readers, identifications that, in turn,

“screen out the faces and gestures of individuals, of actually living persons” (Greene,

1995, p. 11) in favor of seeing learners from a vantage point focused on racial

percentages, test scores, on-task time, classroom management, and issues of

accountability.

Thus, much of the issue of soundtrack development rested with the stance of the

readers themselves and the value of that stance in relation to the educational institution.

As Rosenblatt (1978) has argued, “Whether or not the reader’s stance permits one or another element of the referent and its feeling-tones to become activated is the crux of the

matter” (p. 75). While the advanced placement students’ reading stances did not allow

them to engage with the text “in the full light of awareness” that encouraged the process

“of creating a work of art” (p. 75), their reading stance was more consistent with the

teacher’s definition and accompanying expectations of reader and were evaluated

according to this constancy. The SGT recovery students, however, assumed a more

aesthetic stance in which there was a specific “shift of interest, attention, or awareness

190

from the purely practical or referential to the immediately experienced qualitative

aspects” (p. 37) of the reading transaction.

Ultimately, however, the SGT recovery students’ aesthetic responses were not

valued by the teacher as highly as the more efferent responses generated by the advanced

placement students, despite the fact that the emphasis in the classroom context was on the

development of a positive attitude toward reading and self-identification as a “successful”

reader. Like the advanced placement students’ soundtracks, those developed by the SGT

recovery students were evaluated based on their ability to produce clear, articulate

analyses of literary elements. The SGT recovery students’ products were consistently

marked down for misspelled words, incorrect punctuation, and missing sections. As

Greene (1995) has argued, the emotional aspects of the educational realm continue to be viewed as less rigorous and less significant in the educational realm than those perceived as more cognitive endeavors. Educational assessments, such as the grading of the soundtracks, reflect this perspective. Teachers, whether they recognize it or not, emphasize and encourage particular skills and behaviors not only in the texts that they

choose and the courses they plan, but also in the types of activities and kinds of assignments that are assessed and graded in the classroom context (Applebee, 1993).

The differences in the soundtracks produced by the advanced placement students

and the SGT recovery students were noteworthy, especially considering the fact that both

classes were taught by the same educator and that the design of the activity was almost

identical for both classes (refer to Appendices M and N). These differences are especially

interesting when considering the results of the pilot study, where the soundtrack of the

191

female participant in the “top” reading group and the soundtrack of the female participant

in the “bottom” group were similar in the types or distribution of connections made.

As a result of these findings, it is likely that the connections the students made to the text were rooted in the curricular conversations within which the response activities were placed. Unlike the two classes presented in the study here (the advanced placement, honors class and the State Graduation Test recovery class), the students in the pilot study

were not segregated by achievement. Rather than being homogenously grouped, the

students in the eighth grade classes in the pilot study were heterogeneously mixed, and,

as a result, the curricular contexts in which the response activities were situated and the

curricular conversations that supported them were identical for the “top” and “bottom”

students. One main distinction, then, was the curricular context in which the activity was

placed, and this affected the students’ ability to engage in various types of responses to

the literature.

Curricular Issues

The third question posed by the study looked specifically at the students’

perception of the soundtrack-making activity in light of the curricular conversations that

were planned and implemented in the classroom. While it has been noted that the classroom environment, as a social situation, was a factor in encouraging certain kinds of text-reading and subsequent response (Gallas & Smagorinsky, 2002), the results of this study indicated that a classroom that simply allowed students to access their own reservoir of prior knowledge and past experiences was not enough. This research has shown that, in looking at the classroom context and the manner in which it sought to

value, support, and encourage student response, it was not sufficient to merely provide

192

opportunities for such response. Simple exposure to alternative response activities was not adequate for eliciting the types of personal connections and aesthetic responses the teacher indicated she anticipated and desired when she stated that she hoped her students would “apply [classroom learning] to their lives.” What was more critical than the time devoted to such activities was the explicit guidance provided by the teacher and the curricular conversations in which this instruction was embedded.

As Burroughs (1999) has argued, changing the focus and substance of the curricular conversations is necessary in order to comfortably and consistently integrate

“more open-ended activities, more student-centered instruction, and more process- oriented skills” (p. 136) in the classroom. Teacher planning, including the incorporation of non-canonical texts or alternative activities, will only be effective insofar as they are nested in a discussion that is specifically designed to place them “at the center, rather than at the margins of the curriculum” (p. 140). Students will both receive and perceive these activities as an integral part of the course and worthy of their attention and study if they contribute to the main and overarching conversations of the class.

The implications of this for the purpose of utilizing alternative response activities in the classroom are far-reaching. As Greene (1995) has articulated,

The point is that simply being in the presence of art forms is not sufficient to

occasion an aesthetic experience or to change a life. Aesthetic experiences require

a conscious participation in a work, a going out of energy, an ability to notice

what is there to be noticed in the play, the poem, the quartet (p. 123).

This suggests that if educators wish to help students discover themselves, develop an awareness of their roles in the world, and apply school learning to the consciousness of

193

their daily, lived experiences, teachers must design and implement “informed encounters”

with works of fine art (Greene, 1995, p. 5) The curricular conversation would need to be

redesigned so that students would be afforded opportunities to study texts, visual images,

and music compositions in ways that, according to Greene, break through layers of

obstacles—including barriers such as monotony, expectation, boredom, ritual, and

convention. Such a curriculum would mean that teachers, as curriculum-planners and

enactors, would need to look past the ways in which education is currently viewed—

transmission-oriented and unimaginative. “To teach,” suggested Greene, “is to provide

persons with the knacks and know-how they need in order to teach themselves” (p. 14).

In effect, this would mean the implementation of a consistent and coherent

curricular conversation (Applebee, 1996). Successful English teachers are effective

because they “have a sense of what they are doing and why, and they create within their

classrooms a sense of coherence and direction that students recognize” (Applebee, 1994a,

p. 46). Establishing classrooms that have a sense of purpose and direction means that

there is a central curricular conversation around which all literary pieces, classroom

discussions, and response activities are centered (Applebee, 2002). Rather than a linear

course trajectory where students learn one thing and then move on to new topics,

coherence implies “integrated curricular structures that lead to a gradual deepening and

expansion of understanding” (Applebee, 1997, p. 30). Learners are active meaning-

makers who seek to answer their own questions and deepen their own comprehension not

only of the content and the texts, but also their understanding of one another and self.

Curricular discussions that are coherent also encourage students to enter into conversations within the living traditions of disciplinary discourse, rather than remain

194

passive observers of a conversation that has already occurred and which they are simply simulating. As such, these knowledge-in-action conversations are “open to analysis and change” (Applebee, 1996, p. 17) because they are based on the interest, abilities, and input of its participants and keep the guiding themes central to the classroom discussions and larger curricular conversations (Burroughs, 1999).

Given these defining characteristics, the curricular conversations in which Mrs.

Stanford and her advanced placement students were engaged were not coherent and consistent knowledge-in-action conversations. The discourse initiated by the teacher emphasized the textual analysis of literary elements; as such, the issues she raised were ones that she believed had predetermined and established answers. Rather than undertaking an active search for meaning that was guided by the students and constructing an analysis that allowed for students’ responses, concerns, interests, understanding, and input, students were learning to “solve the puzzle of the texts”

(Applebee, 1997, p. 28) in a standard and appropriate format. Students were learning about literary analysis, rather than knowing and doing literary analysis, despite the fact that the teacher planned (and believed she was implementing) an instructional environment where students were able to explore and consider all manner of interpretive possibility.

Mrs. Stanford and her advanced placement students were engaged in a more episodic curriculum (Applebee, 1996, p. 76). An episodic curricular conversation was one in which the students returned to an overall topic at regular intervals. The organizing focus of the advanced placement class was the idea that literary movements were chronological, and that each succeeding movement was either a continuation of or

195

reaction against the preceding one. As such, the episodic curriculum was easy to both

plan and implement because one section appeared to flow naturally and logically from

the others. Additionally, the topic itself was enhanced and deepened each time it was

addressed. Such a curriculum, while enriching the overall topic, did not integrate the

episodes and the discussions that occurred within them. The curricular conversations, for

example, that took place during the discussion of Romanticism looked and sounded very

different than those about Modernism. Each episode, then, was able to be “taken up and

set aside without a great deal of attention” (Applebee, 1996, p. 76) to the others. Thus,

while the students had an understanding of what topics came next in the classroom, their

understanding of how the alternative response activities were chosen and why they were

implemented was tenuous and vague. There was no overarching discourse that helped to

integrate the individual aspects of the curriculum and unify the varying features of the

chronological literary periods.

Despite the rigid external structure of the SGT recovery class, the curricular

conversations that took place within that classroom were more coherent that those in the

advanced placement class. Applebee (1997) argued,

Classroom conversations gain their educational power because they take place in

a context shaped by the larger discourse communities of which they are a part. In

entering a classroom conversation, participants are learning the rules of discourse

of the larger community as well (p. 27).

While the curriculum construction of this classroom included consistent assessment procedures, analyses of subskills in both reading and writing, and lecture formats, the unifying “conversation” revolved around the question of what it meant to be a reader and

196

a writer. The teacher’s commitment to helping these students develop a sense of

themselves as capable readers and effective writers created the unifying pattern of discourse that helped students to make sense of the various facets of her classroom planning and instructional implementation. While not a traditional organizational pattern

(e.g., chronology or genre) of an English course, it nevertheless provided a framework for understanding the texts and the activities, as well as the discussions in which these were embedded.

Applebee (1996) suggested that the key aspect of implementing a living tradition

of knowledge-in-action was allowing and encouraging students to “take part” (p. 5) in the

discourse. Despite the fact that there were fewer opportunities for interactions between

and among the teacher and students, the communications and contact that did occur were

not based solely on static traditions and the acquisition of objective literary “truths.”

Instead, Mrs. Stanford provided opportunities that capitalized on the students’ relative strengths. These included reading and utilizing non-canonical texts during instruction, such as the daily newspaper and Killing Mr. Griffin (Duncan, 1978); respecting the students’ interest in nonacademic activities, like sports and music; and exploring multiple perspectives of what it means to be a reader and a writer, both in scholastic and nonacademic situations.

Applebee (1996) asserted that an integrated curriculum occurs when students are

encouraged to explore and discover the ways in which all of the elements of a classroom

fit together. While each of these components may be independent, they “echo back on one other” so that the curriculum provides for “independent but interacting experiences”

(p. 77). Integration such as this occurs when the conversation continues across related

197

units, permitting students to re-examine and re-investigate information learned earlier in

light of material currently being studied. The integration and coherence in the SGT

recovery classes revolved around the teacher’s ability to plan and implement activities

that would shape the students’ identities as capable readers and writers. Like Emily

French, the teacher in Burroughs’ (1999) study, Mrs. Stanford was able to make not only

the literary topic explicit, but also “the topic of interpretation” (p. 141). Students were able to utilize the various activities in order to “respond to literature in ways that seemed

more relevant to them” (p. 141), and, as a result, explore their own definition of what it

means to be a literate individual.

Study Limitations

While I was able to triangulate the data, I recognize that, as the primary and only observer in the study, I was unable to concurrently monitor and collect data during the many smaller group interactions that occurred throughout the study. There were times when I focused my attention on students who were in close proximity to my seat; at other times, especially during the soundtrack-making process, I was often invited by the students themselves to watch their interactions, although I did make attempts to observe as much as possible from each group. The data I collected during these small group or partnered activities had the potential to be distorted. The possibility for misrepresentation is based, first and foremost, on the fact that not all groups (and therefore not all students) were represented during these data collection periods. Additionally, it was possible that the learners who proffered requests for my presence may have been a particular type of student, e.g. students who were comfortable with adult interaction, interested in or capable of articulating their opinions, etc.

198

I addressed this limitation by conducting the focus group interviews where each

cluster of students had an opportunity to explore the planning and implementation of the soundtrack-making procedure. Thus, while not every group was observed, I was able to

examine the soundtracks themselves, as well as investigate the generation of those

soundtracks through the focus group interviewing process.

Study Implications

While many learning environments devalue and discourage the use of alternative sign systems, there are classroom teachers who attempt to move beyond verbocentric boundaries. The educator in this study, for example, expressed a commitment to the implementation of a variety of fine arts activities. These were learning situations that she perceived would enhance the curriculum and encourage active participation from her students. While these pedagogical practices were valued by the teacher and enjoyed by

the students, the manner in which they were incorporated into the classroom context was

a determining factor in whether or not the students perceived them as authentic

opportunities to explore texts.

Research Implications

One issue that was highlighted by this study is the fact that learning contexts and

the systems of communication utilized in the classroom affect the roles students adopt;

these, in turn, influence students’ willingness to take risks, construct meaning, and initiate

a search for their place in the classroom discourse. Thus, educational research needs to address the effects of curricular decisions on students’ ability to enter the classroom discourse and develop literacy skills. Specifically, these studies should consider the received curriculum in order to document the potential for the integration of students’

199

vernacular literacies in academic situations, as well as understand more fully the ways in

which curricular organization affects the development of multiple literacies, as well as

the overall academic success of students.

As Burroughs and Smagorinsky (in press) assert, there is a dearth of studies that

investigate the effects of curricular organization. These authors argue that, without

empirical research to document the outcomes of various curricular contents and configurations, arguments about the effectiveness of particular curricular designs will

remain primarily theoretical and unsubstantiated. What can be currently demonstrated is

that indirect assessment measures common in the English language arts (e.g., multiple

choice tests of grammar and standardized comprehension tests) frequently lead to

curricular decisions that devalue and discourage the very reading and writing skills they

are designed to measure (Applebee, 1994b). Essentially, such evaluative tasks often result

in the teaching of fragmented teaching of word and sentence skills, rather than focusing

instruction on purposeful and relevant reading, writing, and thinking tasks. Applebee

(1994b) argued that “it is not much of an exaggeration to point out that we still test and

teach reading without asking students to read” (p. 41). It is, therefore, important that more

qualitative research that examine the relationships between curricular planning and

enactment on students’ perception of the curricular conversation and the advancement of

their literacy skills.

Another research issue is one of valued currency in education. The continued

conviction that there are objective truths in literacy education has seriously limited the

ways in which educators are able to teach and assess students in the classroom. If the

educational community persists in its view of literacy as flat and one-dimensional—a

200

predetermined set of skills and processes common to everyone that can, therefore, be

assessed based on standardized test performance, some children will continue to be

excluded. If the more authentic ways in which students demonstrate their everyday literacies continue to be devalued in classrooms, some students will remain branded as

“struggling,” apathetic, disillusioned, or incapable. It is important that teachers are

supported by educational research (and educational policies) that allow them to recognize and capitalize on the vernacular literacies of their students so that, together, the teachers and students may have a voice in shaping their own educational futures.

Secondly, educational researchers, in future research, should consider the matter

of emotive response and interpretation in meaning-making, as well investigate the impact of affect and emotion on the curriculum received by students. Langer (1992) has argued that meaning, regardless of the subject or content area, is fluid and dependent on a variety of factors. Among these factors are individual interpretation, observable evidence, and new information. If English educators, sustained by research, embrace this view, the

“facts” of literary analysis so often taught in secondary English courses would be understood less as fixed and concrete information and more as discoveries that are shaped by the reader—by underlying personal presuppositions, by the process of understanding, by response to the learning context, and by the roles learners assume in that context. This perspective would elevate the value of all student responses, whether they are “emotional, visceral, aesthetic, or intellectual” (Probst, 1988, p. 36).

Pedagogical Implications

The findings of this study, then, also raised significant issues for pedagogical

consideration. More important than simply finding a space in which to simply enter the

201

curricular conversations of the classrooms, students need to learn how to learn when there is no educator present—to utilize literate behaviors in purposeful, meaningful, enjoyable, and independent activities both in and out of school. Computer, media, and electronic literacies present challenges to all members of a technologically advanced society, but perhaps especially to children whose occupational futures and economic security depend on their ability to navigate increasingly complex and varied texts. Existing research on popular culture and media texts suggests that students will continue to use television, magazines, popular adolescent and adult texts, movies, the internet, and even music as sources of information and knowledge (Alvermann, Moon, & Hagood, 1999; Moje,

Dillon, & O’Brien, 2000). Recognizing and addressing the new demands placed on students as they move toward lifelong literacy and independent learning requires that teachers, teacher educators, and educational communities look carefully and critically at the experiences afforded to students in educational institutions.

Specifically, teachers need to look at their own biases regarding what constitutes literacy and what types of activities might be incorporated in the classroom. While the demand for sophisticated forms of literate behavior continues to rise, language, especially in its written forms, continues to be the most widely acceptable way to represent meaning. In order for students to learn, develop, and exercise their multiple literacies, educators must first learn what it means to actively “make meaning” when reading and interpreting texts, and then teach students how to read along that efferent-aesthetic continuum (Rosenblatt, 1978), depending on the text, the task, and the context. Teachers must also be encouraged to develop and utilize assessment procedures that are not only

“authentic,” but use and value the vernacular and multiple literacies of their students.

202

Moje, Dillon, and O’Brien (2000) have argued that, because educational

institutions value certain types of learning behaviors over others, many teachers “forget

that learners are individuals who have multiple identities that they shift in and out of at

will, or are positioned into by others.” They caution that educators need to recognize that

“we [teachers] position individual learners into one-dimensional roles in our attempt to

meet the needs of a classroom” full of diverse learners (p. 17). When this occurs, many

teachers engage in differentiated instruction that reduces teaching effort on students

perceived as incapable, especially when compared with brighter, more engaged learners.

Dillon and Moje (1998) have argued that educators must always be cognizant of learners

as individuals in the classroom, capable of utilizing a wide array of both cognitive and

affective behaviors in order to read, comprehend, and produce texts. By diminishing the

value of aesthetic responses, teachers limit the opportunities students have to see things

differently, to present an argument and defend it, to think critically or carefully, or to

make connections between information acquired in school and life experiences.

In conclusion, I return to the quote presented at the beginning of this chapter.

My interpretation of this quote is that Descartes believed that there is an inherent link

between the emotional facets of human existence and the cognitive, intellectual aspects of

self. By denying or suppressing the emotive half of our nature (“kept active” through the

aesthetic appreciation of fine arts such as dance, poetry, and music) we inhibit the more

rational, logical, and scholarly side of our thinking. To reach our true potential as

humans, we must maintain a balance between thinking and feeling, between sense and

sentiment. This, however, is only my opinion, and each reader is encouraged to develop

his or her own response to the reading proffered there.

203

References

Aiello, R. (1994). Music and Language: Parallels and Contrasts. In R. Aiello (Ed.)

Musical Perceptions. New York: Oxford University Press (pp. 40-69).

Albers, P. & Cowan, K. (1998). The tensions and possibilities of integrating the arts:

A study of seven elementary teachers and their curriculum. Paper presented

at the Annual Conference of the National Reading Conference, December,

Scottsdale, AZ.

Alvermann, D. E. (2000). Grappling with the big issues in middle grades lieteracy

education. Keynote address presented at the National Educational Research

Policy and Priorities Board’s Conference on Curriculum, Instruction, and

Assessment in the Middle Grades: Linking Research and Practice, July 24-25,

Washington, D.C.

Alvermann, D. E. (2001). Reading adolescents’ reading identities: Looking back to

see ahead. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44, 676-690.

Alvermann, D. E.; Moon, J. S., & Hagood, M. C. (1999). Popular culture in the

classroom: Teaching and researching critical media literacy. Newark, DE:

International Reading Association/National Reading Conference.

Andersen, N. (1996). Adolescent culture and music. Emergency Librarian, 24 (2),

30-31.

Applebee, A. N. (1993). Literature in the Secondary School: Studies of Curriculum and

Instruction in the United States. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of

English.

Applebee, A. N. (1994a). English language arts assessment lessons from the past. The

204

English Journal, 83 (4), 40-46.

Applebee, A. N. (1994b). Toward thoughtful curriculum: Fostering discipline-based

conversation. The English Journal, 83 (3), 45-52.

Applebee, A. N. (1996). Curriculum as Conversation. Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press.

Applebee, A. N. (1997). Rethinking curriculum in the English language arts. The

English Journal, 86 (5), 25-31.

Applebee, A. N. (2002). Engaging students in the disciplines of English: What are

effective schools doing? The English Journal, 91 (6), 30-36.

Armstrong, K. (1992). Dynamics of change: Speculation on the forthcoming model

of response to literature. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

National Reading Conference, December 2-5, San Antonio, TX.

Beach, R. (1993). A teacher’s introduction to reader-response theories. Urbana, IL:

National Council of Teachers of English.

Beach, R. & Marshall, J. (1990). Teaching literature in the secondary school. San Diego:

Harcourt.

Bleich, D. (1978). Subjective criticism. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education (4th ed.)

Boston: Pearson.

Bresler, L. (2005). Music and the intellect: Perspectives, interpretations, and implications

for education. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(1), 24-31.

Briggs, C. L. (1986). Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the

interview in social science research. United Kingdom: Cambridge University

205

Press.

Bruner, J. (1973). Beyond the information given: Studies in the psychology of knowing.

New York: Norton.

Burroughs, R. S. (1999). From the margins to the center: Integrating multicultural

literature into the secondary English curriculum. Journal of Curriculum and

Supervision, 14 (2), 136-155.

Burroughs, R. S. & Smagorinsky, P. (in press). The secondary English curriculum and

adolescent literacy. In L. Christenbury, R. Bomer, & P. Smagorinsky (Ed.). The

Handbook of Adolescent Literacy. Guilford CT: Guilford Press.

Caswell, R. C. (2005). A musical journey through John Steinbeck’s The Pearl: Emotion,

engagement, and comprehension. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy,

40(1), 62-67.

Charmaz, K. (2002). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In

J.F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.). Handbook of Interview Research:

Context and Method. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Comber, B. & Cormack, P. (1997). Looking beyond ‘skills’ and ‘processes’: Literacy

as social and cultural practices in classrooms. Reading: A Journal about Literacy

and Language in Education, 31 (3), 22-29.

Cowan, K. (2001). The visual-verbal connections of literacy: An examination of

the composing processes of the fifth- and sixth-grade student. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation. Georgia State Unniversity, Atlanta GA.

Cowan, K. & Albers, P. (2006). Semiotic representations: Building complex literacy

practices through the arts. The Reading Teacher, 60 (2), 124-137.

206

Davidson, C.W. & Powell, L .A. (1986) The effects of easy listening background

music on the on-task performance of fifth grade children. Journal of Educational

Research, 80(1), 29-33.

DeKay, S. (1996). Classroom research into the teaching of literature. Informational

Analyses (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED3399540)

Dillon, D. R. & Moje, E.B. (1998). Listening to the talk of adolescent girls: Lesson

about literacy, school and lives. In D. A. Alvermann, K. A. Hinchman, D. W.

Moore, S. F. Phelps, & D. R. Waff (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the literacies in

adolescents’ lives. Mawah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Duncan, L. (1978). Killing Mr. Griffin. Boston: Little Brown and Company.

Ebisutani, K.(1991). The effects of music on reading, oral language, and writing abilities:

A review of the literature. Informational Analyses (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED333356).

Eisenkraft, S. I. (1999). A gallery of visual responses: Artwork in the literature

classroom. The English Journal, 88(4), 95-102.

Eisner, E. (1990). Implications of artistic intelligences for education. In W. J. Moody

(Ed.). Artistic intelligences: Implications of education (pp. 11-30). New York:

Teachers College Press.

Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2004). Improving adolescent literacy: Strategies at work.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to Design and Evaluate Research in

Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Company.

Franzak, J. K. (2006). Zoom: A review of the literature on marginalized adolescent

207

readers, literacy theory, and policy implications. Review of Educational

Research, 76 (2), 209-248.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder.

Galda, L. & Graves, M. F. (2007). Reading and responding in the middle grades.

Boston: Pearson.

Gallas, K. & Smagorinsky, P. (2002). Approaching texts in school: Students understand

texts in many ways that may not match the “standard.” Reading Teacher, 56 (1),

54-63.

Gee, J. P. (1996). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. London:

Routledge-Farmer, Inc.

Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the Imagination: Essays on Education, the Arts, and

Social Change. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1975). Learning how to mean. London: Edward Arnold.

Harste, J. C. (2003). What do we mean by literacy now? Voices in the Middle, 10 (3),

8-12.

Holstein, J. A. & Gubrium, J. F. The active interview. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

27 (3), 265-280.

International Reading Association and National Council of Teachers of English. (1996).

Standards for the English language arts. Urbana, IL: Authors.

Janssen, T., Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G. (2006). Literary reading activities of good

and weak students: A think aloud study. European Journal of Psychology

of Education, XXI (1), 35-52.

Juslin, P. N. & Sloboda, J. A. (2001). Music and emotion: Introduction. In P.N. Juslin

208

& J. A. Sloboda (Eds.) Music and emotion: Theory and research. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Karbach, J. (1997). Metaphors in comments and classrooms. Paper presented at the

Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication

March 12-15, Phoenix, AZ.

Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed).

Instructional Design Theories and Models: An Overview of their Current Status.

New Jersey: Lawrence Arlbaum Associates, Inc.

Kinzer, C.K. (2003). The importance of recognizing the expanding boundaries of literacy.

Reading Online, 1096123. International Reading Association.

Langer, J. A. (1994). A response-based approach to reading literature. Language Arts,

71 (30), 203-211.

Langer, J. A. (1992). Speaking of knowing: Conceptions of understanding in academic

disciplines. In A. Herrington & C. Moran (Eds.) Writing, teaching,

and learning in the disciplines. (pp. 69-85). New York: Modern Language

Association of America.

Leland, C. H. & Harste, J. C. (1994). Multiple ways of knowing: Curriculum in a new

key. Language Arts, 71 (5), 337-345.

Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

McGee, L. M. (1992). Focus on research: Exploring the literature-based reading

revolution. Language Arts, 69 (7), 529-537.

Moje, E. B., Dillon, D.R., & O’Brien, D. (2000). Reexamining roles of learner, text, and

context in secondary literacy. Journal of Educational Research, 93 (3), 1-25.

209

Myers, M. (1996). Changing our minds: Negotiating English and literacy. Urbana, IL:

National Council of Teachers of English.

Patton, M. Q. (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks: Sage Publications.

Perlmann, J. & Shirley, D. (1991). When did New England women acquire literacy?

William and Mary Quarterly, 48 (1), 50-67.

Pitchert, J. W. & Anderson, R. C. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 309-315

Probst, R. E. (1988). Dialogue with a text. The English Journal, 77 (1), 32-38.

Probst, R. E. (1994). Reader-response theory and the English curriculum. The English

Journal, 83 (3), 37-44.

Probst, R. E. (1981). Response-based teaching of literature. The English Journal, 70

(7), 43-47.

Purves, A. C. & Beach, R. E. (1972). Literature and the reader: Research in response to

literature, reading interests, and the teaching of literature. Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Rice, P. S. (2002). Examining the effectiveness of entering the story world of characters

portraying diverse gender roles. Paper presented at AERA, April 28- May 2,

San Francisco, CA.

Richards, I. A. (1929). Practical Criticism. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.

Robinson, R. D. (2005). Readings in reading instruction: Its history, theory, and

development. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1938, 1968). Literature as Exploration. New York: Noble and Noble.

Rosenblatt, L.M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the

210

literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Salinger, J. D. (1951). Catcher in the Rye. Boston: Little Brown and Company.

Savan, A. (1999) The effect of background music on learning. Psychology of Music, 27,

138-146.

Short, K. G., Kauffman, G., & Kahn, L. H. (2000). “I just need to draw”: Responding

to literature across multiple sign systems. The Reading Teacher, 54 (2), 160-

171.

Siegel, M. (1995). More than words: The generative power of transmediation for

learning. Canadian Journal of Education, 20 (4), 455-475.

Sipe, L.R. (2000). The construction of literary understanding by first and second

graders in oral responses to picture storybook read-alouds. Reading Research

Quarterly, 35(2), 252-275.

Sloboda, J. A. (1985). The musical mind: The cognitive psychology of music.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Smagorinsky, P. (1997). Artistic composing as representational process. Journal of

Applied Developmental Psychology, 18(1), 87-105.

Smagorinsky, P. (2001). If meaning is constructed, what is it made from? Toward

a cultural theory of reading. Review of Educational Research, 71 (1), 133-169.

Smagorinsky, P. & Coppock, J. (1995). The reader, the text, and the context: An

exploration of a choreographed response to literature. Journal of Reading

Behavior, 27(3), 271-298.

Smagorinsky, P. & O’Donnell-Allen, C. (1998a). The depth and dynamics of context:

Tracing the sources and channels of engagement and disengagement in students’

211

response to literature. Journal of Literacy Research, 30 (4), 515-559.

Smagorinsky, P. & O’Donnell-Allen, C. (1998b). Reading as mediated and mediating

action: Composing meaning for literature through multimedia interpretive texts.

Reading Research Quarterly, 33 (2), 198-226.

Smagorinsky, P. & O’Donnell-Allen, C. (1999). Revising Ophelia: Rethinking questions

of gender and power in school. The English Journal, 88 (3), 35-42.

Smith, F. (1988). Understanding Reading (4th ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

Spiegel, D. L. (1998). Reader response approaches and the growth of readers.

Language Arts, 76 (1), 41-48.

Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant Observation. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College

Publishers.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory

Procedure and Techniques.Newbury Park: CA: Sage.

Street, B. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development,

ethnography, and education. London: Longman.

Suhor, C. (1984). Towards a semiotic-based curriculum. Journal of Curriculum

Studies, 16, 247-257.

Thagard, P. (1992). Analogy, explanation, and education. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 29 (6), 537-544.

Venville, G. & Donovan, J. (2006). Analogies for life: a subjective new of analogies

and metaphors used to teach about genes and DNA. Teaching Science, 52 (1),

18-22.

212

Whitin, P. (1996). Exploring visual response to literature. Research in the teaching

of English, 30, 114-140.

Whitin, P. (2005). The interplay of text, talk, and visual representation in expanding

literary interpretation. Research in the Teaching of English, 39(4), 365-397.

Whitin, P. (1994). Opening potential: Visual responses to literature. Language Arts,

71 (2), 101-108.

Wilhelm, J. (1997). You GOTTA BE the book. New York: Teachers College Press.

Williams, B. T. (2004). “A puzzle to the rest of us”: Who is a “reader” anyway?

Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47 (8), 686-689.

Willinsky, J. (1990). The new literacy: redefining reading and writing in the schools.

New York: Routledge.

Zarillo, J. & Cox, C. (1992). Efferent and aesthetic teaching. In J. Many & C. Cox (Eds.)

Stance and literary understanding: Exploring the theories, research, and practice

(pp. 239-245). Norwood, NJ: Albex.

213

Appendix A

CONSENT FORM FOR TEACHERS

University of Cincinnati Consent to Participate in a Research Study College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services Angela M. Miller, M. Ed., Principal Investigator Phone: 604-9977; email: [email protected]

Title of Study: Understanding literary texts through the creation of soundtracks

Introduction: Before you agree to participate in this study, it is important that you read this form. You should understand the purpose, procedures, risks, and benefits of the study. You should also be aware of your right to leave the study at any time.

Purpose of the Study: The reason for this study is to find out what happens when students use music to explain what they understand about a text they have read.

Duration and Procedures: The researcher will observe your classroom during the classes where the story is taught. The observations will last about twelve weeks. You will be interviewed twice. Interviews will be scheduled at your convenience. The interviews will be recorded. You will be asked questions about how you organize the curriculum for your classes and choose literature and activities, what you believe your students understood about the story, how they made the soundtracks, and the music chosen. Each interview will last about one hour.

Risks/discomforts: There are no foreseeable risks or discomforts to participants in this study. Your real name will not be used. Your participation is completely voluntary. If any problems should occur, you can contact the primary investigator at 604-9977. You can also contact my advisor, Dr. Bob Burroughs, at 556- 0196 or the Chair of the Institutional Review Board—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 558-5784.

Benefits: There are no direct benefits to the students or teachers participating in this study.

Confidentiality: Your real name will not be used in any notes or publications resulting from this study. All field notes, audiotapes, videotapes, and transcriptions will be kept in a locked file cabinet. They will be destroyed after the study is completed.

Right to refuse or withdraw: You are free to leave the study at any time by informing the researcher that you no longer wish to participate.

Legal Rights: Nothing in this consent form waives any legal right you may have nor does it release the primary investigator, the University of Cincinnati, or its agents from liability for negligence.

I HAVE READ THIS CONSENT FORM AND VOLUNTARILY AGREE TO BE IN THIS STUDY. I WILL RECEIVE OF COPY OF THIS FORM FOR MY INFORMATION.

______Signature of Teacher date

______Signature and Title of Person Obtaining Consent date

Miller #05-11-18-04E Teacher Permission (v.1-9-06)

214

Appendix B

STUDENT ASSENT FORM

Title of Study: Understanding literary texts through the creation of soundtracks

Purpose of the Study: The reason for this study is to find out what happens when students use music to explain what they understand about a text they have read.

Duration and Procedures: The researcher will be observing the class discussion for twelve weeks. She will be listening for how the students understand and talk about the story in class. Your soundtrack and narrative will be copied. The original will be returned to you. You will be interviewed individually once. Each interview will last only one hour. Interviews will be scheduled when it is convenient for you. You will also be asked to participate in a group interview. This group interview will consist of the people with whom you worked on the soundtrack. The interviews will be recorded. You will be asked questions about what you understood about the story, how your group made the soundtrack, the kinds of activities you do and the stories you read in class, and the music chosen to make the soundtrack.

Risks/discomforts: There are no risks or discomforts to you during the study. Your real name will not be used. Your participation is completely voluntary. If any problems should occur, you can contact the principal investigator at 604-9977. You can also contact my advisor, Dr. Bob Burroughs, at 556-0196 the Chair of the Institutional Review Board—Social and Behavioral Sciences at 558-5784.

Benefits: There are no direct benefits to you for participating in this study.

Right to refuse or withdraw: You may choose not to participate at all. You are also free to leave the study at any time by telling the researcher that you no longer wish to participate.

Legal Rights: Nothing in this consent form waives any legal right you may have nor does it release the principal investigator, the University of Cincinnati, or its agents from liability for negligence.

I HAVE READ THIS ASSENT FORM AND VOLUNTARILY AGREE TO BE IN THIS STUDY. I WILL RECEIVE OF COPY OF THIS FORM FOR MY INFORMATION.

______Signature of Student date

______Signature and Title of Person Obtaining Consent date

Miller #05-11-18-04E Student Assent (v.1-9-06)

215

Appendix C

STUDENT CONSENT FORM

Title of Study: Understanding literary texts through the creation of soundtracks

Purpose of the Study: The reason for this study is to find out what happens when students use music to explain what they understand about a text they have read.

Benefits: There are no direct benefits to you for participating in this study.

Right to refuse or withdraw: You may choose not to participate at all. You are also free to leave the study at any time by telling the researcher that you no longer wish to participate.

I HAVE READ THIS CONSENT FORM AND VOLUNTARILY AGREE TO BE IN THIS STUDY. I WILL RECEIVE OF COPY OF THIS FORM FOR MY INFORMATION.

______Signature of Student date

______Signature and Title of Person Obtaining Consent date

Miller #05-11-18-04E Student Permission (v.1-9-06)

216

Appendix D

PARENTAL PERMISSION FORM

Title of Study: Understanding literary texts through the creation of soundtracks

Introduction: Before you agree to allow your child to participate in this study, it is important that you read this form. You should understand the purpose, procedures, risks, and benefits of the study. You should also be aware of your right to leave the study at any time.

Purpose of the Study: The reason for this study is to find out what happens when students use music to explain what they understand about a text they have read.

Duration and Procedures: The researcher will be observing the class discussion for twelve weeks. She will be listening for how the students understand and talk about the story. Your child’s soundtrack and narrative will be copied. The original will be returned to your child. Your child will be interviewed individually once. The interview will last only one hour. Interviews will be scheduled at your child’s convenience. Your child will also be asked to participate in a group interview. This group interview will consist of the students with whom your child worked on the soundtrack. No class time will be used to do interviews. The interviews will be recorded. Your child will be asked questions about what he understood about the story, how his group made the soundtrack, the kinds of activities completed and stories read in the class, and the music chosen.

Risks/discomforts: There are no risks or discomforts to participants in this study. Your child’s real name will not be used. Your child’s participation is completely voluntary. If any problems should occur, you can contact the principal investigator at 604-9977. You can also contact my advisor, Dr. Bob Burroughs, at 556-0196 or the Chair of the Institutional Review Board—Social and Behavioral Sciences at 558-5784.

Benefits: There are no direct benefits to the students participating in this study.

Confidentiality: Your child’s real name will not be used in any notes or publications resulting from this study. All field notes, audiotapes, videotapes, and transcriptions will be kept in a locked file cabinet. They will be destroyed after the study is completed.

Right to refuse or withdraw: Your child is free to leave the study at any time by telling the researcher that she no longer wishes to participate.

I HAVE READ THIS PERMISSION FORM AND VOLUNTARILY AGREE TO ALLOW MY CHILD TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS STUDY. I WILL RECEIVE OF COPY OF THIS FORM FOR MY INFORMATION.

______Signature of Parent/Legal Guardian date ______Signature and Title of Person Obtaining Permission date

Miller #05-11-18-04E Parental Permission (v.1-9-06)

217

Appendix E

Teacher Interview Protocol

1) How do you organize your ----- class?

1) What influenced your decision to organize your ----- course chronologically, thematically, etc.?

2) How do you decide which pieces (stories, novels) to include as representative of those periods, themes, etc.?

3) What do you see as your overall objectives for this course?

4) What influences your decision about activities you choose?

5) What types of fine arts activities (music, art, drama) do you regularly include?

6) What activities have worked really well? Why do you think so?

7) How do you see these as enhancing/adding to/detracting from/influencing/shaping the curriculum?

8) How do you see these as improving/helping/assisting students in thinking about the pieces?

9) What response activities have you not done that you would like to try?

10) "Projects" are not included in the syllabus as part of the grade...just wondering why/how you incorporate them?

218

Appendix F

Individual Student Interview Protocol

1) How is your class organized (e.g., chronologically, thematically, around the textbook)?

2) How do you think your teacher decides which stories or novels to include?

3) What do you think are your teacher’s overall goals for this course?

4) What influences your teacher’s decisions about activities you have in the class?

5) What types of fine arts activities (music, art, drama) do you regularly do?

6) What activities have worked really well for you? Why?

7) How do you see the activities she chooses as adding to or detracting from the other things in the class or the goals for the course?

8) How do you think these help you in thinking about or learning about the stories or novels?

9) "Projects" are not included in the syllabus as part of your grade. How have these been included or graded? What do you think about the fairness of counting these as a grade?

10) What kinds of discussions have you had in class that you think are interesting or memorable? Why?

219

Appendix G

Focus Group Interview Protocol

1) Explain how your group first began working on the project.

2) How did your group decide what songs to use?

3) What kinds of connections do you think your groups’ songs have with the story you read?

4) Where/How did your access the music or the music’s lyrics?

5) How did your group decide who would do what in completing the project?

6) In looking at your soundtrack, I see -----. Explain why your group chose (wrote) this.

7) Did the project make your group (or you personally) think about the story differently?

How did it affect how you thought about the story?

8) How did the activity “fit” with the other things you did with the book in the

classroom?

9) How do you think your teacher will “grade” this project? Should it be graded? Why?

10) Did you enjoy doing this project? Why or why not?

220

Appendix H

English III Advanced Syllabus

Instructor: Mrs. Stanford

Class Description: English III A focuses on major works in American Literature. Throughout the year students will study chronological literary units that are composed of various essays, speeches, letters, short stories, poems, novels, and plays. Students will study each piece in its correct historical context. Students will also complete a portfolio containing various types of writing, and continue to improve their vocabulary, grammar, and usage skills. Strengthening written and oral communication skills, enhancing critical and creative thinking skills, and becoming familiar with major American works, writers, and literary movements are goals for the course.

Rules and Expectations: 1. Respect yourself 2. Respect others. 3. Respect this place. 4. Be academically honest at all times. Any student(s) found plagiarizing or cheating in any way will receive a zero for the assignment. This is a serious offense!

Consequences for breaking a rule: 1. A warning and a reminder of the rule 2. A conference with the student after class to discuss the problem and possible solutions. 3. A phone call to or a conference with a parent 4. A detention 5. A removal from the class and a referral

These steps will be followed concerning the above rules unless we feel immediate action must be taken.

Grading System: Grades are based on the following percentage system.

Portfolio 25% Students’ portfolios will contain several major pieces: a business letter, a resume, a college essay, creative piece(s), a persuasive speech manuscript with research, and a critical literary analysis.

Tests 20% Tests will be given throughout the year and will cover major literary movements and/or texts that we study.

Quizzes 15% Vocabulary quizzes, grammar quizzes, and reading checks will be given periodically. Vocabulary and grammar quizzes will always be announced. However reading checks may come at any time, so be prepared.

Homework 10% The majority of students’ homework will be reading; however, I do not want to give excessive reading checks, so I will evaluate some written assignments as homework and evaluate grammar and vocabulary lessons.

Participation 10% This class is heavily fueled by discussion. We expect all students to read their assignments thoroughly and to participate actively. Sleeping or having one’s head down will not be tolerated and will result in a ten- point deduction. Reponses to Thinkfast questions will also be included in the participation grade.

221

Final Exam 20%

Tentative Course Outline English III Advanced

Puritanism 1607-1765 Edward Taylor Anne Bradstreet Jonathan Edwards

The Enlightenment 1750s Benjamin Franklin

Early Nationalism 1765-1830 Thomas Paine Thomas Jefferson Patrick Henry

Romanticism 1830-1865 Washington Irvin William Cullen Bryant Nathaniel Hawthorne Edgar Allen Poe

Transcendentalism 1840-1850s Ralph Waldo Emerson Henry David Thoreau Frederick Douglas Walt Whitman Emily Dickinson

Realism and Naturalism 1865-1900 Charlotte Perkins Gilman Kate Chopin Mark Twain Steven Crane Willa Cather Bret Harte Ambrose Bierce

Modernism 1900-1940s Ernest Hemingway Tennessee Williams T. S. Eliot F. Scott Fitzgerald James Thurber E. A. Robinson

Imagism 1912-1917 Ezra Pound William Carlos Williams Wallace Stevens H. D.

222

The Harlem Renaissance 1920-1929 Langson Hughes Claude McKay W. E. B. DuBois Countee Cullen Zora Neal Hurston

The Beat Generation 1945-1955 Jack Kerouac Allen Ginsburg

Contemporary Literature 1960-present Sylvia Path Anne Sexton J. D. Salinger

Final Projects and Portfolio Revision

Make-Up Policies

Homework: The number of days that students have been absent form class is equivalent to the number of days that they have to make up the assigned work. In order to know what work to make up, students should check the make-up notebook located next to my desk. All assigments and classroom activities will be documented daily. It is the students’ responsibility to turn in assignments.

Tests and Quizzes: Students who are absent only the day before a previously announced quiz or test will be expected to take the quiz or test upon their return (the day for which it was scheduled.). Students who are absent on a quiz or test day will be expected to take the quiz or test after school and within two weeks of returning. This is extremely generous so I expect all tests to be made up. If they are not done in this time, a zero will be awarded.

Late Work Policy: Late work is not accepted with the exception of major papers. If a major paper is late, I will deduct ten points per day. Students who consistently turn in late papers or who do not turn them in at all will likely fail the class. Your showcase portfolio is the largest portion of your grade, so please be conscious of all due dates!

Parents and Students: If you have questions or concerns, please contact me via email or voicemail or see me after class.

223

Appendix I

Anticipation Guide The Catcher in the Rye

Place a checkmark next to any statements you think are true. After we read the novel we will go back and place a checkmark next to the statements Holden thinks are true. Explain why you do not believe the statements to be true.

Student’s Holden’s Opinion opinion

1. ______People are often fake.

2. ______One of the worst things people can do is to be insincere.

3. ______Boarding schools are lonely for the children who attend them.

4. ______It is extremely difficult to get on with your life after there has been a death in the family.

5. ______When your grades are poor, it is often a reflection of of a problem in your personal life.

6. ______Quite often people attach sentimental value to strange objects.

7. ______Younger siblings are often pests.

8. ______Boarding schools have a negative effect on children.

9. ______Teens’ parents often do not truly know who their son or daughter is as a person.

10. ______Teens often feel lost and are searching for something, yet they do not understand what.

224

Appendix J

Green Day Lyrics

“Who Wrote Holden Caulfield?”

A thought burst in my head and I need to tell you It’s news that I for thought Was it just a dream that happened long ago? I think that I just forgot

Well it hasn’t been the first time And it sure does drive me mad

There’s a boy who fogs his world and now he’s getting lazy There’s no motivation and frustration makes him crazy He makes a plan to take a stand but always ends up sitting Someone help him up or he’s gonna end up quitting

I shuffle through my mind To see if I can find The words I left behind Was it just a dream that happened long ago? Oh well…never mind

Well it hasn’t been the first time And it sure does drive me mad

A thought burst in my head and I need to tell you It’s news that I thought for Was it a dream that happened long ago? I think that I just forgot Well it hasn’t been the first time And it sure does drive me mad

I shuffle through my mind To see if I can find The words I left behind Was it just a dream that happened long ago? Oh well…never mind

225

Appendix K

Questions for Green Day Lyrics “Who Wrote Holden Caulfield?”

1. Describe the boy in the song. Support your descriptions with the lyrics.

2. What does Green Day mean when they say “make a plan to take a stand but always end of sitting? Can you relate to this? Explain.

3. Pick out words from the song that have a negative connotation or suggestion. Why do you think Green Day chooses these particular words.

4. Using the lyrics to guide you, what could be some possible themes or subjects in Catcher?

5. Why do you think a band like Green Day would create a song about a book that was written fifty years ago. Explain.

226

Appendix L

Most Like To Paper

Name______

Directions: You are to fill out Holden’s Memory Book for the year 2003. Answer the following questions based on what we know about Holden’s character.

HOLDEN CAULFIELD

1. Most likely to ______Why?

2. Favorite Band or Music ______Why?

3. Favorite TV Show ______Why?

4. Dreams for the Future ______Why?

5. What I do for Fun______Why?

227

Appendix M

The Catcher in the Rye: The Soundtrack

One reason that many of us enjoy watching movies is for their ability to absorb us into the stories being told. Many times, we in the audience follow the highs and lows of the characters we watch. As expert viewers, we not only follow the onscreen action with our eyes, but we also pick up valuable information with our ears. The soundtrack of a movie gives us, as viewers, clues as to what may or may not happen next. IT often alerts us to whether we are dealing with a hero or villain, and it helps to heighten the emotion of pivotal scenes.

Assignment: Have there ever been times when you noted an exceptional song choice for a movie? Perhaps there have been instances when you felt a certain song didn’t match the scene with which it was played. Now you will have the opportunity to create your own soundtrack for the novel The Catcher in the Rye. You and your group will be responsible for choosing the music to fit with key scenes and characters within the story. Requirements: 1. Each group will choose FOUR important scenes from the story and a song to match it. For each scene, the group must provide a copy of the song lyrics, a brief summary of the scene, and an explanation/analysis of why the song choice is appropriate.

2. Each group will choose TWO characters from the story and a song that helps define the character. Again, provide a copy of the song lyrics and an explanation/analysis of why the song is appropriate for the character.

3. Each group will compose an original song for their soundtrack. The song can focus on a scene, character, or simply relate to the story as a whole. Please provide a song title and lyrics. Performances of originals are welcome!

4. Each group must design and create cover art and a song list for their soundtrack. The cover should reflect the song choices as well as the novel. This is a great chance to show off some of your creativity.

Reminder: This project is designed to let you show your understanding of the novel in a creative way. We hope that you are able to enjoy the process of creating a soundtrack, while showing what you have learned at the same time. However, please be aware that we take this project seriously and it will weigh heavily on your final grade.

228

Appendix N

Killing Mr. Griffin: The Soundtrack

Assignment: Have there ever been times when you noted an exceptional song choice for a movie? Perhaps there have been instances when you felt a certain song didn’t match the scene with which it was played. Now you will have the opportunity to create your own soundtrack for the novel The Catcher in the Rye. You and your group will be responsible for choosing the music to fit with key scenes and characters within the story. Requirements: 1. Each group will choose THREE important scenes from the story and a song to match it. For each scene, the group must provide a copy of the song lyrics, a brief summary of the scene, and an explanation/analysis of why the song choice is appropriate.

229