The Development of Literate Identities in Students Identified As Struggling Readers

THE DEVELOPMENT OF LITERATE IDENTITIES IN STUDENTS IDENTIFIED AS STRUGGLING READERS

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment for the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

Mary Catherine Sableski, B.S., M.S.

* * * * *

The Ohio State University 2007

Dissertation Committee:

Professor Patricia Scharer, Advisor Approved by:

Professor David Bloome

Professor Emily Rodgers ______

Advisor College of Education

Mary Catherine Sableski

2007

ABSTRACT

The development of literate identity within academic contexts is influenced by a variety of factors, one of which is the interactions between teachers and students. For struggling readers, literate identity is also influenced by the assigning of a label based on a lack of reading skills. The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of the interactions between teachers and students within a summer one-to-one tutoring situation on the identity development of students identified as struggling readers. The summer one-to-one tutoring program was part of a master’s level course on assessment and evaluation of reading difficulties at a Midwestern university. A qualitative multi-case study approach was used to collect and analyze data. Data were collected over a 6-month period and included observations of tutoring sessions, interviews of both teachers and students, work samples from teachers and students, transcripts of both in-class and on- line university class discussions, and observations and interviews of the students and their new teachers in the fall.

Data analysis included thematic coding and microanalysis and revealed two types of interactions between the teachers and the students: those at the point of difficulty and the asking of questions by the teacher. At the point of difficulty, the teachers interacted

ii with the students to scaffold instruction and to teach the use of reading strategies.

Teachers asked questions using various forms, and the forms used reflected the teaching style that they relied upon.

These interactions influenced the students’ literate identities over the course of the study. The teachers’ perspectives on the assessment, evaluation, and instruction of struggling readers played a role in the types of interactions that occurred. Students responded to the teachers using resistance and coping behaviors. Resistance occurred when the interactions did not match students’ existing literate identities, and coping behaviors occurred when the students reached points of difficulty that challenged their literate identities. When students’ coping behaviors were acknowledged by the teachers, students were able to use them to maintain existing literate identities, while resistance was not a successful means of inserting previous literate identities into the interactions.

These findings demonstrate that students bring literate identities to academic interactions from previous contexts, and the extent to which these identities are honored by their teachers has implications for the development of their literate identities.

Struggling readers who find their literate identities reflected within academic interactions are better able to resolve their previous literate identities with the ones presented to them by their teachers.

iii

Dedicated to my parents, Jack and Mary Kay Geraghty, my husband, Matt, and my children, Annie, Patrick, and Nora… my inspirations and my roots.

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

As I finish this dissertation, I find myself overwhelmed by the support I have received from so many. Without the following people, I would not have been able to take even a single step on this journey.

My advisor, Dr. Patricia Scharer, provided advice that was critical, kind, and perfectly timed. This dissertation is a work I am proud of because of her patience, dedication, and mentorship. Dr. David Bloome, Dr. Emily Rodgers, Dr. Barbara Kiefer, and Dr. Janet Hickman also provided valuable insights along the way. From each of you,

I have learned so much. I hope that I am able to emulate your values of hard work and scholarship in my own career.

To my colleagues, especially Jackie Arnold, who took this journey with me, thank you for your friendship and professional partnership. Dr. Patricia Grogan, Dr. Patricia

Hart, and Dr. Kathryn Kinnucan-Welsch mentored me through this process, each in her own way. I am indebted to them for all the ways in which they supported me towards this goal.

The teachers and students who are the focus of this study deserve my deepest thanks. In allowing me into their tutoring sessions, they allowed me into their lives.

Their dedication and hard work provided me with rich data to examine, and this study would not have been possible without their participation.

v To Tom and Patty Sableski, my mother and father-in-law, thank you for your

patience and unwavering support of my endeavor. The hours of babysitting put my mind

at ease, knowing my children were with someone who loved them as much as I do. You

are both inspirations to me of what it means to be an educator.

To my mom and dad, Jack and Mary Kay Geraghty…where do I begin? Thank

you for raising me to value and trust in my own abilities, for being there from the very

beginning and at every step along the way to this goal. Your support came in so many

forms, from babysitting to books to listening ears. Along with my sisters, Terri and

Kathy, and their families, all of you provide love, support, and understanding that I can find nowhere else but home. Thank you for being the constant I have always needed in my life.

My children have never known life without Mommy working on her Ph.D. Annie and Patrick spent their infancy being read books and articles from my coursework, and

Nora spent hers at my feet, with books and toys surrounding her, while I surrounded myself with data. The lessons I have learned from this process will surely make me a better mother. I thank them for distracting me and keeping me grounded in what is really important in life.

In thanking my husband, Matt, I find myself at a loss for words. He did all the right things at all the right times – listened, walked away, offered opinions, or just nodded his head knowingly. He was able to keep our household running while I worked, making me feel like I still had some control over things when this was clearly not the case. I consider myself extremely lucky to have found such a wonderful man to spend my life with, and I am thrilled to give him and our children the gift of a completed dissertation!

vi VITA

May 8, 1976………………………………..Born - La Grange, Illinois

1998………………………………………..B.S. in Education Elementary and Special Education University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio

1998-2000………………………………….Middle School Multi-handicapped Teacher, Valley View Local Schools, Germantown, Ohio

2000-2001…………………………………Graduate Assistant School of Education University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio

2001………………………………………..M.S. in Education (Literacy) University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio

2001-2002…………………………………Teacher-in-Residence School of Education University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio

2002-2004…………………………………6th grade Teacher English/Language Arts Van Buren Middle School Kettering, Ohio

2002-2007…………………………………Adjunct Faculty School of Education University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio

vii PUBLICATIONS

Arnold, J.M., & Sableski, M.K. (2007). Charles Judd: His contributions to the field of reading. In S. E. Israel & E. J. Monaghan (Eds.), Reading pioneers: Historical accounts of earlier, outstanding contributions to the field of reading (pp. 101- 118). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Education Studies in Reading, Children’s Literature, and Research Methodology

viii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract...... ii Dedication...... iv Acknowledgments...... v Vita...... vii List of Tables ...... xv List of Figures...... xvii

Chapters:

1. Framing the Study...... 1

Introduction...... 1 Struggling Readers and Identity...... 3 Importance of Language to Identity...... 6 Statement and Significance of the Problem...... 9 Purpose of the Study ...... 11 Research Questions...... 12 Definition of Terms...... 13 Summary...... 14

2. Review of Literature ...... 16

Introduction...... 16 Social and Literate Identity...... 16 Struggling Readers...... 20 Defining the “Struggling Reader”...... 20 Categorical Model of Disability...... 24 Cultural/Social Model of Disability...... 26 Struggling Readers and Identity...... 30 Successful Approaches for Teaching Struggling Readers...... 36 Pull-Out Intervention Programs...... 37

ix In-Class Interventions ...... 38 One-to-One Tutoring ...... 43 Re-conceptualizing Approaches to Instruction...... 46 Recommendations for Practice ...... 49 Creating a Community of Readers...... 50 Differentiate Instructional Approaches...... 51 Emphasize Strengths, not Deficits ...... 53 Professional Development ...... 55 Summary...... 57 Teacher-Student Interactions ...... 57 Psychological Approaches to Teacher-Student Interactions...... 58 Sociocultural Approaches to Teacher-Student Interactions...... 65 Summary...... 71 Summary...... 72

3. Research Methodology ...... 73

Introduction...... 73 Research Methods...... 73 Context of the Study ...... 74 Choice of Research Site...... 75 Choice of the Research Context...... 77 Gaining Entrance ...... 80 Participants...... 81 Teacher Participants...... 81 Student Participants ...... 83 Data Collection ...... 84 Literacy Lesson Framework ...... 86 Teaching-Learning Instrument...... 88 University Class Assignments ...... 91 University Class Discussions...... 92 Observations of Tutoring Sessions ...... 93 Interviews of Teachers and Students ...... 94 Student Work Samples...... 96 Role of the Researcher...... 96 Data Analysis...... 98 Data Analysis for Research Question #1 ...... 103 Data Analysis for Research Question #2 ...... 104 Data Analysis for Research Question #3 ...... 107

x Trustworthiness and Transferability ...... 108 Triangulation...... 109 Peer Debriefer ...... 110 Member Checks ...... 110 Transferability...... 111 Summary...... 112

4. Findings of the Study...... 113

Introduction...... 113 Jenny and Ethan ...... 114 Ethan ...... 115 Jenny ...... 120 Jenny and Ethan’s Tutoring Sessions ...... 124 Types of Teacher-Student Interactions ...... 126 Revoicing as an instructional scaffold ...... 127 Teaching word analysis as a reading strategy...... 129 Teaching the use of background knowledge as a reading strategy...... 134 Types of questions asked by Jenny...... 136 Literate Identity Shifts and the Teacher-Student Interactions ...... 140 Attempting ...... 146 Coping...... 146 Depending...... 147 Resolving ...... 148 Summary...... 149 Annie and Maggie...... 150 Maggie ...... 150 Annie...... 156 Annie and Maggie’s Tutoring Sessions ...... 160 Types of Teacher-Student Interactions ...... 161 Modeling as an instructional scaffold...... 162 Noticing as an instructional scaffold...... 165 Teaching the use of context clues as a reading strategy ...... 169 Teaching the use of background knowledge as a reading strategy...... 171 Types of questions asked by Annie ...... 172 Literate Identity Shifts and the Teacher-Student Interactions ...... 174 Reading as a social practice ...... 181 Accuracy ...... 182 Competition...... 184

xi Comprehension ...... 186 Summary...... 188 Nora and Matthew...... 188 Matthew ...... 188 Nora...... 195 Nora and Matthew’s Tutoring Sessions...... 199 Types of Teacher-Student Interactions ...... 200 Telling as an instructional scaffold...... 201 Teaching the use of context clues as a reading strategy ...... 204 Teaching rereading as a reading strategy...... 206 Types of questions asked by Nora ...... 208 Literate Identity Shifts and the Teacher-Student Interactions ...... 211 Summary...... 221 Jack and Patrick ...... 221 Patrick ...... 221 Jack ...... 228 Jack and Patrick’s Tutoring Sessions...... 232 Types of Teacher-Student Interactions ...... 234 Explicit teaching as an instructional scaffold ...... 234 Teaching word analysis as a reading strategy...... 241 Teaching the use of background knowledge as a reading strategy...... 245 Types of questions asked by Jack ...... 247 Literate Identity Shifts and the Teacher-Student Interactions ...... 251 Summary...... 260 Summary...... 260

5. Cross-Case Analysis ...... 262

Teachers’ Views on Struggling Readers...... 263 Teachers’ Descriptions of Struggling Readers ...... 263 Teachers’ Beliefs about Instruction for Struggling Readers...... 264 Teachers’ Beliefs about Assessment for Struggling Readers ...... 268 Teachers’ Beliefs about Evaluation for Struggling Readers...... 270 Types of Interactions...... 272 Point of Difficulty...... 272 Scaffolding Instruction...... 272 Modeling as an instructional scaffold...... 274 Explicit teaching as an instructional scaffold ...... 276 Teaching Strategy Use ...... 280

xii Teaching word analysis as a reading strategy...... 281 Teaching the use of context clues as a reading strategy ...... 283 Teaching the use of background knowledge as a reading strategy...... 284 Questioning...... 286 Summary...... 290 Identity Shifts as Part of Coping Behaviors...... 290 Coping as Resistance ...... 292 Coping as Cooperation...... 296 Silenced Coping Behaviors...... 297 Summary...... 300 Summary...... 300

6. Discussion and Recommendations ...... 301

Introduction...... 301 Discussion of the Findings...... 305 Role of the Teachers’ Perspectives on Struggling Readers ...... 305 Match between Teachers’ Beliefs and Instruction...... 308 Views of Disability Reflected in the Teacher-Student Interactions...... 310 Influence of the University Course...... 311 Interactions at the Point of Difficulty ...... 312 Scaffolding...... 312 Teaching the use of reading strategies...... 315 Role of the Student in the Interactions...... 318 Influence of Learning Dispositions...... 318 Categories of Identity Taken on by the Students...... 321 The Intercontextuality of the Interactions...... 321 Role of Out-of-School Literacies...... 323 Connection between Identity and Learning ...... 325 Summary...... 326 Limitations of the Study...... 327 Recommendations for Future Research...... 329 Summary...... 332

xiii Appendices

Appendix A Interview Questions ...... 333

Appendix B Sample of Notes Taken During Transcription ...... 337

Appendix C Transcript from Annie’s Session Selected for Microanalysis...... 339

Appendix D Transcript from Nora’s Session Selected for Microanalysis...... 344

Appendix E Consent Letters ...... 350

Appendix F Case Study Rubric Used for the University Course...... 362

Appendix G Literacy Lesson Framework...... 364

Appendix H Teaching Learning Instrument Codes ...... 366

List of References ...... 369

xiv LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2.1 Theories of disability...... 29

3.1 Required and additional tasks asked of the teacher participants...... 76

3.2 Data collection schedule...... 79

3.3 Assessment and intervention time allocation...... 82

3.4 Types of data collected for each research question ...... 85

4.1 Ethan’s interview responses describing himself as a reader...... 118

4.2 Types of questions asked by Jenny ...... 136

4.3 Examples of monitoring questions asked by Jenny ...... 137

4.4 Examples of managing questions asked by Jenny ...... 139

4.5 Maggie’s descriptions of what she does well as a reader ...... 156

4.6 Annie’s noticing comments ...... 166

4.7 Types of questions asked by Annie ...... 172

4.8 Matthew’s descriptions of himself as a reader ...... 194

4.9 Nora’s book selections ...... 203

4.10 Types of questions asked by Nora ...... 209

4.11 Jack’s noticing comments ...... 236

4.12 Examples of Jack’s monitoring questions ...... 248

xv 5.1 Teachers’ descriptions of struggling readers ...... 263

5.2 Teachers’ descriptions of instruction for struggling readers ...... 264

5.3 Teachers’ descriptions of assessment for struggling readers ...... 268

5.4 Teachers’ descriptions of evaluation for struggling readers ...... 270

5.5 Teachers’ goals for their students ...... 273

5.6 Types of questions used by the teachers ...... 286

5.7 Opening words of the teachers’ monitoring questions ...... 287

5.8 Annie and Nora’s managing questions ...... 289

xvi LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

3.1 The Literacy Lesson Framework ...... 88

3.2 Codes used in the Teaching-Learning Instrument...... 90

4.1 Examples of Ethan’s journal writing ...... 118

4.2 Cause and effect graphic organizer completed by Nora and Matthew ...... 214

5.1 Explicit teaching used by teachers at students’ points of difficulty...... 277

xvii

CHAPTER 1

FRAMING THE STUDY

"We must not, in trying to think about how we can make a big difference, ignore the small daily differences we can make which, over time, add up to big differences that we often cannot foresee." --Marian Wright Edelman

Introduction

As teachers, we certainly cannot remember details about each and every student we teach, but there are always particular students who stand out in our minds for one reason or another. I remember Michael, a quirky, active boy who always seemed happy to see me, but never had his homework and struggled through most of the sixth grade curriculum. I can remember Alex, who was quiet and unassuming, and who at first seemed to be “getting it” in class, but in reality was reading three grade levels below his peers. I can remember Sierra, a highly social girl who fell silent when engaged in academic tasks, and felt that she had read many books, although she did not understand a word of the pages she had turned.

It has always struck me that it is usually the students who have struggled the most in the classes I have taught that stick out in my memory. When slightly pressed, of course, I can recall Megan, Brad, and Kim, highly successful students who excelled at

everything they did academically. But it is the reluctant and struggling students who still

haunt me at night, long after they have left my classroom doors, and whose voices echo

in my mind when I read about an approach that I just know would have made sense to

one of them. Struggling readers are not the “easy” ones to teach, and the search to find

what works with each one leads teachers down many different paths.

My interests as an educator have always lain with the students who struggle the most with learning, for whatever reason. As a middle school intervention specialist working with multihandicapped students, I found both their struggles and their determination to read even basic sight words equally frustrating and inspiring to me. It was at this time that my interest in reading difficulties was piqued. As a middle school language arts teacher, I found that the students whose struggles to read were the most difficult to solve were those without a specific label, such as developmentally delayed or learning disabled. These students were otherwise typical students who experienced significant difficulties with reading, but were also often unmotivated or disengaged from school. They were labeled “struggling readers” because of the struggles they experienced with reading, as well as the fact that they did not qualify for special education, but were functioning on the bubble between average and below average. I have devoted my time as a graduate student to studying how struggling readers acquire the labels that they do, and what influence this has on teachers and students.

What is it about Michael, Alex, and Sierra that is so different from Megan, Brad, and Kim? What factors lead to the struggle these students face on a daily basis with school, and what makes reading such a challenge and a chore to them, while the others pour over book after book, “getting it” as we hope all students will? The answers to these

questions may depend on who is answering them. Struggling readers are unique and

varied, and their descriptions are often dependent upon the cultural and social

backgrounds of those charged with identifying them.

Struggling Readers and Identity

Research has long focused on the needs of students who struggle with reading

(Allington 1983, 1994, 2006; Allington & McGill-Franzen, 1989; Beers, 1998; Broaddus

& Bloodgood, 1999; Broaddus & Ivey, 2002; Ivey, 1999a, 1999b). The major impetus

for this research has been to describe intervention approaches that may be successful with

struggling readers. Struggling readers have been described as “striving readers” (Fink,

2006), “hard-to-teach” (O’Connor, Notari-Syverson, & Vadarsy, 1996), and “learning

disabled” (Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003), among others. Due to the fact

that students identified as struggling readers often do not meet the minimum requirements

for special education (Allington, 2006), it can be difficult to define what exactly qualifies

a student as a struggling reader. As Alvermann (2001b) has argued, struggling readers

are ascribed identities as readers through the labeling process, and these identities are taken up by teachers. Influenced by the perspectives of their teachers through their instructional interactions, students adopt identities as readers that affect how they see themselves and their place in the world.

Whatever the label, students who struggle with reading do not succeed within the regular classroom, frustrating and puzzling teachers searching for the best ways to help them learn. These students may have documented cognitive disabilities, such as mental retardation, dyslexia, or specific language disabilities (Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2005), or

their struggle to read may be less obvious, placing them a grade level or two below their peers. Students who struggle with reading are demanding of additional instructional attention, because of their inability to meet grade-level expectations.

Within the research literature on successful approaches for teaching struggling readers, interventions that occur either within the classroom (Allington, 2006;

S.V. Taylor, 2000; Thrope & Wood, 2000; Wilhelm, 2001; Williams, 2001) or in an alternate context (Juel, 1996; Roller, 1996; Shanahan, 1998; Wasik & Slavin, 1993) have been examined. Research is inconclusive as to which of these interventions is most successful, likely because the needs of struggling readers are varied, requiring approaches to instruction that mirror the difficulties they are experiencing. For students reading two grade levels or more below their peers, intensive, one-to-one instruction has been cited as a highly effective intervention (Juel, 1996; Shanahan, 1998; Wasik & Slavin, 1993).

However, the most beneficial learning contexts for struggling readers, whether they are regular classrooms, pull-out programs, or one-to-one tutoring sessions, have been identified as those that promote both skill and will and combine enablement and engagement (Ivey, 1999b; Paris, Lipson, & Wixson, 1994; Roe, 1997). Enabling and engaging struggling readers means providing reading instruction both tailored to their unique needs and able to capture their increasingly specific interests. Without giving students the will to want to read beyond our classroom doors, the skills will not be quite as meaningful. As stated by Snow, Burns, and Griffin (1998), the best intervention for struggling readers is excellent instruction.

Reading is a social practice, and its definition reflects the values of society

towards academic achievement, intellectual ability, and the goals of education. “Although

we often think of literacy as a set of all-purpose skills and strategies to be learned, it is

more complex, more local, more personal, and more social than that” (Johnston &

Costello, 2005, p. 256). Assessment of literate behavior involves close observation of

students engaging in literate activities, and describing them in ways which will be

meaningful to various groups of people (parents, politicians, administrators, etc.).

Alignment between assessment and reading is critical to support the social nature of both

of these practices, and to the accurate diagnoses of struggles to read.

Processes of identifying struggling readers are also rooted in social processes.

Research has shown that the struggle to read is not necessarily a result of a causal factor

that lies in the student. Often, the expectations of school position students as struggling

readers (Bomer, 1999, Broaddus & Ivey, 2002). In a review of the literature on

adolescent struggling readers, Manuel (2003) states, “Indeed, there is repeated evidence in the literature that the very practices, culture, and pedagogy, both implicit or explicit, operating in schools that have been designed to assist readers who are struggling may in fact produce readers who experience difficulties, who disengage, who lack motivation or who actively resist many or all kinds of reading” (p. 11). The reasons students do not meet expectations are not just ability based, but can be attributed to a variety of contextual factors, such as gender, socio-economic, cultural, ethnic or linguistic status, all of which contribute to the frustration experienced by teachers and students when there is a mismatch between students’ backgrounds and the expectations of school.

Extending the social nature of identity, students form identities for themselves through the interactions they have with others: for example, a teacher, peers, and parents.

Literate identity, then, is formed through social interaction within literacy events.

“Others” within these interactions may include authors of texts, in addition to those listed above. Through heteroglossic, dialogic exchange (Morris, 1994) with past, present, and future participants, students form conceptions of themselves as readers that influence how they act within literacy events. For struggling readers, this process of identity development is also influenced by the assigning of a label (struggling reader, learning disabled, dyslexic, etc.). The assigning of a label is a social practice used to identify and sort people whose abilities do not match social and cultural expectations. The label is an assigned identity that struggling readers must negotiate as they explore alternate identities for themselves through the literacy interactions of which they are a part.

Importance of Language to Identity

Language, or a person’s way of speaking, identifies us to others. As soon as someone speaks, others can identify where they are from and immediately associate cultural norms and stereotypes with the person speaking. According to Thomas and

Maybin (1998), studies of language and literacy have recently moved to accept this view of language as a social process. This is significant because of the power of language to categorize a person from the moment he or she begins to speak. Every action, be it words or deeds, is in answer to an address (Morris, 1994). Awareness of language as a social

process, in which different forms may be utilized in different contexts by different people, is essential to the understanding of language as personal representation. I will use an example from my personal experiences to illustrate this point.

“I have to write a paper,” my 18-year-old niece said to me one day, “on something in which I am interested.”

“Hmmmm….well, in what are you interested?” I asked, attempting to be helpful.

“I don’t know…..my teacher said I should do it on special recreation programs.”

Brigid has used a wheelchair her entire life, so this is a topic with which she would be

presumed to be familiar, and interested.

“Well, are you interested in that?”

“I guess…I really don’t know what I am interested in, to tell you the truth. I’m

just gonna write about what she said, and get the paper done,” (personal communication,

11/24/03).

Brigid, like many students her age, is forming her literate identity. Having almost completed 13 plus years of school, she is still unsure of “what to write about” based on her unidentified interests. Interestingly, in numerous other conversations with Brigid, she reveals very specifically defined interests: reading, boys, playing the drums, working with young children, computers, and horseback riding. Brigid’s experience is an

illustration of the relation of language to one’s literate identity.

Oral language is a challenge for Brigid, as she stutters severely. Brigid has

become very adept at expressing herself in alternate formats: through her proficient

writing abilities, facial expressions, email and Instant Messenger, and body language.

Language, when defined as a means of personal representation that is socially ascribed, is

in use by Brigid constantly. Although the dominant form of discourse in Brigid’s peer

group is oral, Brigid has learned how to join in the discussions through written and

nonverbal language use. Koliussi (2004) states that the language “is more than just

language mixture; it is who [they] are; it is their identity,” (p. 107). Language is a means

of personal representation that reveals much about social and literate identities. This

study analyzes how the language use of teachers and students constructs literate identity

for the students as they interact with one another around literacy events.

As was illustrated by the conversation transcript, Brigid is still, at 18 years of age,

constructing her literate identity. She is using the practices of language and literacy in

which she is engaged to “try out” different identities, to see what fits. People tend to fit

the norms to which they are exposed, or the dominant culture of their experiences

(McDermott & Varenne, 1995). However, for Brigid, this is quite a daunting task. Her

primary cultural group, her peers, has norms of speaking, dating, and extracurricular

activities which Brigid must negotiate and find a way to meet, or be left out of the group.

Culture is a set of norms and expectations negotiated by a group of people that success,

or failure, to meet determines to which group a person belongs. These expectations shape

identity. Culture constructs a person’s literate identity by assigning a level of status

based on ability to meet the norms and expectations of literate people in that particular culture, as demonstrated by written, oral, and nonverbal language abilities. Brigid’s literate identity is constructed by her culture based on her language use. By examining cultural contexts, the expectations for the language and literacy use of people can be determined. “The cues of personal identity must always be interpreted in the context of the reality of a given social setting” (Angrosino & Mays de Perez, 2000, p. 682). The

ways in which the teachers’ perspectives on struggling readers influenced the students’

identity process was examined in this study to understand the connection between the

context for instruction and the students’ shifting literate identities.

Another perspective on the role language plays in the development of identity can

be found in the work of Vygotsky (1978). Language is a transparent medium; it

constructs reality, it does not just mirror reality. Vygotsky’s social view of language

gives clarity to the methods chosen for this study to understand how teachers’ and students’ written and oral language helped to construct the literate identities of the students. In the present study, the use of written documents created by the participants, as well as transcripts of interviews and teaching interactions, allowed me to closely examine the patterns of language that occurred as the students worked to further develop their literate identities in response to one-to-one tutoring. “As an important factor in the

development of identity and literacy which is both limiting and enabling of learning and

learners’ futures, it is important to study educational discourse closely and critically”

(Florio-Ruane & Morrell, 2004, p. 47). An important theoretical construct at work in this

study is the notion that language is a social, transparent process that reveals much about

identity.

Statement and Significance of the Problem

How being labeled as struggling readers impacts the identity development of

students is critical to understanding the causes and treatment of reading difficulties.

Additionally, the interactions between teacher and student during the instructional

process can significantly influence how a student views himself or herself as a reader. As

was stated previously, the struggle to read is not necessarily a result of causal factors

within the student, but may be a result of a mismatch between the expectations of schools

and teachers and the background of the student. The impact of being labeled as a

struggling reader on the identity formation of students has been the focus of past research

(Alvermann, 2001; Johnston, Woodside-Jiron, & Day, 2000; Reay & Wiliam, 1999).

There has also been considerable research into effective assessment and intervention

strategies for struggling readers (Allington, 1983, 1994, 2006; Allington & McGill-

Franzen, 1989; Beers, 1998; Broaddus & Bloodgood, 1999; Broaddus & Ivey, 2002;

Clay, 1998). However, teachers carry different sets of assumptions about struggling readers, which may influence the ways in which they interact with these students. As

Alvermann (2001b) states, “Culture constructs disability, as well as ability” (p. 677). The

consequences of being labeled as disabled in any way are great for a student, and

understanding how teacher-student interactions contribute to identity formation is

essential to the development of more effective intervention strategies for these students.

Although research has been completed on teacher-student interactions from a

variety of perspectives (Brophy, 1979, 1981; Brophy & Good, 1974; Cochran-Smith,

1984; Cohen, 1972; Grant & Rothenberg, 1986; O’Connor & Michaels, 1993), research is

needed that connects these interactions with the literate identities students develop.

There has been a surge of research in the area of intervention strategies for struggling readers (Allington, 2006; Baker, 2002; Beers, 2003; Broaddus & Ivey, 2002; Chapman &

Tunmer, 2003; Hibbing & Rankin-Erickson, 2003), but understanding how the ways in which teachers and students interact around these strategies is essential to positively impacting the reading lives of students who struggle. “Whereas considerable research

attention has been devoted to the cognitive consequences of reading difficulties…less

attention has focused on the motivational and behavioral spinoffs” (Chapman & Tunmer,

2003, p. 6). It is daunting to know that the words and actions of a teacher can have such

a powerful impact on a student, but it is also essential to know if we are going to accept

and teach students who understand the potential they have to create identities for

themselves which will allow them to participate in society in productive and meaningful

ways.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to examine the identity development of struggling

readers within teacher-student interactions during one-to-one tutoring. This study seeks

to contribute to the literature on identity development, teacher-student interactions, and

the remediation of struggling readers. By examining the interactions between four

teacher-student dyads as they interact during one-to-one tutoring, I plan to articulate how

the nature of the interactions contributes to the identity development of the students. The

following research questions guide this study.

For several years, I have worked with teachers pursuing master’s degrees in

literacy through a course titled “Assessment and Evaluation of Reading Difficulties.”

This course involves a 2-semester commitment. During the first semester, participants meet weekly (twice a week during the summer session, during which this study was conducted) for class, and during the second semester, they work one-to-one with a struggling reader. The first semester of the course focuses on learning about assessments and intervention strategies that are helpful when working with students who struggle with

reading. Course assignments, discussions, and readings are intended to introduce students to various assessment tools and ways of working with struggling readers. In the second portion of the course, students are expected to employ what they have learned when working with a struggling reader, typically in a one-to-one situation.

This course was an appropriate context in which to address the research questions because of the intensive nature of the teaching and learning that took place. Teachers were asked to not only identify a student who was struggling with reading, but also to justify how and why they selected this student. By talking with the teachers about this process, I was able to examine the perspective the teachers took on struggling readers, which assisted in understanding the interactions between teacher and student. In addition, teachers were expected to follow through with this student by working one-to- one for 6 weeks, enabling me to focus on the interactions between teacher and student.

This was also an appropriate context in which to observe the students’ processes of identity development, again due to the intensive nature of the course. By working with students twice a week during the summer, when they were away from the distractions and responsibilities of the regular school year, teachers had the opportunity to get to know who the students were as readers at a deeper level, and therefore judge the impact of the instruction on the students’ identity development.

Research Questions

This study aims to address and articulate answers to the following research questions. The perspective of the teachers on the assessment, evaluation, and instruction of struggling readers was examined in light of the ways it influenced the interactions

between the teachers and the students. The interactions themselves were analyzed for general categories. Finally, the students’ roles in the interactions were examined in terms of how they influenced identity processes. The specific research questions were:

1. What is the perspective of the teacher on the assessment, evaluation, and instruction of struggling readers? How does this perspective influence the interactions between teacher and student in the tutoring situation?

2. What is the nature of the interactions between teachers and students participating in a one-to-one tutoring program for struggling readers?

3. How do the interactions between teacher and student influence the shifting literate identities of students identified as struggling readers?

Definition of Terms

Struggling reader – For the purposes of this study, a struggling reader has been defined as a student reading below grade level who has demonstrated a need for reading intervention, based on formal and informal assessments, teacher observations, and parent feedback, who is not receiving any interventions outside of the regular classroom (i. e., special education services).

Social identity – representation of the self in the social world. Social identity is assigned by innate characteristics, discourses, institutions, and personal affinities (Gee 2000-

2001).

Literate identity – a blending of social identity with personal and social views of oneself as a reader and a writer.

Scaffolding – an instructional technique used by teachers to gradually release the

responsibility for the task to the student.

Reading strategy – a tool that can be used independently for monitoring reading comprehension during a reading act.

Instructional strategy – a tool used by a teacher to teach a concept or skill to a student.

Summary

The following chapters will narrate the process of this study as I sought to examine the research questions. These chapters are presented to provide the history and process of the study for the reader. An explanation of the related literature, methodology, context, findings, and discussion of the findings will compose the content of the remaining chapters.

In chapter 2, a review of the related literature will be presented. Within this review, I discuss the literature surrounding social and literate identity, as well their application to struggling readers. Issues and approaches related to the identification of struggling readers will be examined. Research related to successful approaches to remediation for struggling readers will be discussed. This chapter also examines teacher- student interactions, including research related to sociocultural examinations of teacher- student interactions.

Chapter 3 includes descriptions of the methodology used to gather and analyze the data for this study. The research design, a qualitative multi-case study approach will be explained. Description of the context to the study will be provided, as will descriptions of the various types of data gathered to inform the study. Methods of data analysis,

including the constant comparative method, the development of grounded theory, and the

use of microanalysis will be discussed. Provisions for the trustworthiness will be

explained.

Chapters 4 and 5 comprise the results of the data analysis. Teacher-student dyads

are discussed on a case by case basis according to the research questions, along with

descriptions of the students and the context of the tutoring sessions. Chapter 5 includes a

cross-case analysis of the common themes that emerged across all four cases.

Finally, chapter 6 is a discussion of the results. The first section includes a

summary of the results of the data analysis and the significant findings discussed in

Chapters 4 and 5. The next section articulates the four general themes that emerged from

the analysis of the data. Finally, limitations to the study and directions for future research will be presented.

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

In this chapter, I will describe research related to the central tenets of this study.

First, I will discuss the concept of social identity, specifically focusing on issues related to social identity and struggling readers. Approaches to instructing struggling readers will be discussed, including implications for practice. Following this discussion, research on teacher-student interactions, including those related to the sociocultural theory of learning, will be articulated. My goal in this chapter is to build a case for the role my

study will have in filling gaps that exist in the research. In particular, although research

has been completed with each of these pieces in isolation, there is a paucity of research that relates developing literate identities to the instructional interactions between teachers and students.

Social and Literate Identity

In an era in which our identities are known before we are ever seen or heard, through mechanisms such as caller ID, email, and instant messaging, it has never been more important that students know who they are and where they fit in the world. The purpose

of school is to prepare students to participate in ways that are productive and meaningful for a democratic society (Johnston & Costello, 2005). Students who struggle in school often develop identities which limit their views of themselves as productive members of society. Students who struggle with reading, in particular, often do not develop identities which allow them to be successful at the many literate tasks required of productive citizens.

Operating within discourses of schooling and society are individuals who form literate and social identities for themselves from a variety of sources. Gee (1996) discusses social identity in relation to discourse styles, emphasizing that speaking style is strongly connected to social identity. Gee maintains that people draw from many different social languages when they speak, matching their language to the social group with which they wish to identify. Social identities fluctuate dependent upon context, and are constantly negotiated for in each unique situation (Knobel, 1999). This variability, which is “central to language” (Gee, 1996, p. 120), can cause students from non- mainstream backgrounds to experience failure in a school setting, particularly when their form of discourse does not match the expectations of the teacher. Though what one student has to say may have meaning within the home environment, this same narrative may be met with confusion and rejection at school (Gee, 1996).

Social identity is a blending of personal constructions of self with the cultural and social form with which one wishes to identify. “People tell others who they are, but even more important, they tell themselves and then try to act as though they are who they say they are” (Holland, Lachiotte, Skinner, & Cain, 1998). Social identity is created by the self, but its manifestation in the social world is dependent upon the responses of others

(Gee, 2000-2001). People are limited in their social identity constructions by structures

of race, class, and gender, in addition to other “powerful discourses” (Holland et al., p.

26), of which examples are schools, peer groups, and high-stakes assessments.

Discourses can often be limiting to people in terms of the identities afforded them (Egan-

Robertson, 1998). However, it is possible for people to take on conflicting social

identities, based on their ability to master the expectations of the discourses surrounding

each (Knobel, 1999).

Gee (2000-2001) listed four ways to view identity based on the sources of power

in the processes that create them. Nature-identity is associated with a person’s “nature”

or biological make-up. In reference to struggling readers, a nature-identity would be

ascribed when the label assigned to the student (ADHD, LD) is attributed to the

biological and genetic make-up of the child. Viewing identity in this way makes the label

unavoidable, as it is part of the child’s nature. Institution-identity refers to the ways

people are positioned by institutions as being a certain way. In reference to the previous

example, when a child is assigned a label (ADHD, LD) by a psychologist or medical

doctor, this identity has been ascribed to him or her by institutional authority. Discourse-

identity is an individual trait that is ascribed through the discourses of which a person is a part. Examples of this identity may include talkative, friendly, or stoic. Finally, affinity- identity is a result of a person’s experiences and the groups to which they belong. These

“affinity groups” are reflective of interests and motivations, and produce identities based on their purpose. In discussing these four identities, Gee emphasized that they cannot be

separated, but work in concert with one another to produce a person’s “way of being.”

Identity, according to Gee, is contingent about the responses of others to the potential

identities we encounter.

One of the ways in which these identities are ascribed is through the ways in

which people talk to one another. How teachers’ language affects children’s learning and

identity development has been a topic of conversation in recent educational dialogue

(Johnston, 2004). Johnston discusses teachers’ use of language and its influence on

children’s learning processes and identity development. Johnston maintains that most

teachers are not aware of how profoundly their language can influence children, but that

it is essential that teachers take a closer look at this phenomenon. Teacher talk in

classrooms is central to the learning process. Through the discourse practices teachers

arrange, they influence how students will interpret the curriculum, instruction, and

assessment processes of the classroom. A teacher’s language “bears information about

the speaker and how he or she views the listener and their assumed relationship”

(Johnston, 2004, p. 6). Therefore, preconceived notions of students may color the

exchanges between teacher and student, resulting in student perceptions of how they are

being positioned as readers. As Johnston states, “language…is not merely

representational…it is also constitutive” (p. 9). Teachers’ word choice “creates realities

and invites identities” (p. 9). Echoing Holland et al.’s (1998) notion of figured worlds,

Johnston (2004) describes identity as “coming to see in ourselves the characteristics of

particular categories (and roles) of people and developing a sense of what it feels like to

be that sort of person and belong in social spaces” (p. 23). Through classroom discourse,

teachers structure opportunities for students to grow into their literate and social

identities, in positive or negative ways, depending on the structure of the discourse.

Literate identity is bound up with the concept of social identity. Literate identity

refers to the ways in which people form conceptions of themselves as readers and writers

based on the discourses of which they are a part. Literacy, when seen as a means to social identity development, positions readers as occupants of “literate space” (de Castell,

1999, p. 400), rather than simply part of the production of literate practices. In other

words, being a reader does not just mean the production of activities which represent

oneself as a reader to others, but also occupying a place in societal discourses as a reader.

Reading does not just occur within the context of school – it is a semiotic activity which

takes place every day (Nielsen, 1998). “Within the discourse of nonacademic literacy,

students convey their emotions, thoughts, voices, and social and cultural roots. They use

these forms to help construct their social identities” (O’Brien, 1998, p. 31). Literate and

social identities are closely bound together, as one’s identity as a reader or a writer

designates a specific space one is to occupy in society.

Struggling Readers

Defining the “Struggling Reader”

Definitions of struggling readers abound in the research literature. The

complexity that struggling readers bring with them to class is reflected in attempts to describe them. “There is no such thing as The Struggling Reader – since all who struggle do so in intricately unique ways, experiencing different snarls of confusion, peculiar exertions, idiosyncratic theories of literacy, and unusual habits of mind” (Bomer, 1999, p.

22). When asked to define struggling readers, educators, parents, and others involved in the identification of these students, often provide definitions which vary in their complexity, as much as in the semantics with which they are communicated. These definitions are often dependent on what is valued about reading by the identifier. Most commonly, struggling readers are seen as those readers who do not qualify for special services outside of the regular classroom, but rather struggle with grade level reading assignments, often reading up to two grade levels below their peers (Guthrie & Davis,

2003). Due to the fact that these readers may not qualify for special services outside of the regular classroom environment, they present a challenge to teachers who face a wide variety of ability levels among their students.

Students who demonstrate a significant discrepancy (more than two grade levels below expected) between their actual grade level and the level at which they are performing typically receive a label (Caldwell & Leslie, 2005). Such labeling serves to place students in categories based on their inability to progress at grade level, categories which they often spend the rest of their lives trying to desert. The advantage to being given such a label is the receipt of additional services outside of the regular classroom, but the disadvantage includes the assigning of a label that will be difficult for a child to overcome.

Interestingly, students who struggle with reading in school often have complex literate lives outside of school. These out-of-school literacies are reflective of their senses of self and reveal astounding competency with literate tasks (Hinchman,

Alvermann, Boyd, Brozo, & Vacca, 2003). Hinchman et al. describe the impact of more inclusive perceptions of competence which take into account the out-of-school literacies

in which students frequently engage and which they value over school based literacies.

When students’ out-of-school literacies are “imported” into schooled literacies, students

are more apt to use the context of school to construct and practice their social identities,

and to subsequently be more engaged and successful with academic literacy tasks

(O’Brien, 1998). Students who lack motivation and drive to read are sometimes referred to as “aliterate” (Beers, 1998), and are viewed as struggling readers in many classrooms.

These students have the ability to read, but lack the desire, which often results in teacher

perceptions that the students are struggling with the skills and strategies required for

reading.

A large percentage of students labeled as struggling readers are of minority

cultural backgrounds. Many are learning English as a second language. The labeling of

these students as struggling readers appears to be a clear result of a mismatch between the

expectations of school and the background experiences concerning reading that they

bring with them to school. Students who are learning English as a second language are

not disabled, nor are they necessarily deserving of a label as a struggling reader. Often,

they bring with them a legacy of misguided, though well-intentioned instructional

techniques by teachers ill-equipped to teach English to students of diverse linguistic

backgrounds (Jimenez, 1997). A closer look at these students often reveals complex

reading skills and strategies, designed to apply their knowledge of their first language to

English and to construct meaning from texts more effectively. As discussions later in this

review will reveal, the use of culturally relevant materials with students of diverse

cultural backgrounds has been shown to negate the struggling reader label previously

given to them. Many of the struggling readers in schools are labeled as such because of a

difficulty learning English; however, as with motivational issues, this is not a problem

that resides in the child, but rather in the culture of the school of which they are a part

(McDermott & Varenne, 1995). Culture is the disabling element for these students, and it

has profound and infinite effects on their literate and social identity development

(Alvermann, 2001b).

Delpit (1995) discusses the “culture of power” that exists in classrooms. Such a

culture has rules for participation that are not always explicit to non-members, making it

difficult for them to take part in classroom activities successfully. Bloome (1994) states,

“What counts as reading and writing may vary across situations” (p. 102), and that this

variability tends “to be both ethnocentric and situation specific” (p. 103). It is vital that

students are able to gain access to the dominant culture concerning what counts as

reading in classrooms, if they are to be able to appropriately display their reading

abilities. This cultural mismatch in classrooms has an enormous impact on students, and

also influences teachers’ assessments of students’ abilities. Children who may read and

write extensively outside of school in more familiar cultural environments may have a great deal of difficulty displaying this ability on de-contextualized school assignments

(Delpit, 1995). Although they may be quite competent and successful literate individuals, students who do not display their abilities in the appropriate way are labeled as struggling readers.

Struggling readers are unique and vary in their abilities and needs (Broaddus &

Ivey, 2002), but the labels and categories they are assigned by schools do not allow for

this uniqueness. At the same time they are unique, however, students “who struggle with

reading are part of the same cloth from which good readers come” (Alvermann, 2001b, p.

683). As referenced earlier, struggling readers do not necessarily struggle because of a biological deficit or problem that resides within them, but rather the label is a result of the practices of school our culture chooses to enact.

Labeling practices have profound implications for how students view themselves as readers. As D. Smith (1987) states, “what may have been first thought of as the presence or absence of a skill becomes a question of personal identity” (p. 59). In approaching the subject of labeling, there are two methods which have received attention in the research literature. The first, the categorical model of disability, places students in categories based on abilities and most often damages the development of positive identities. The second, the cultural or social model of disability, places the disability outside of the student within the culture of which he or she is a part, and serves to foster positive identity development. Both of these models will be discussed in detail to articulate the role of assessment and subsequent labeling practices on students’ identity development.

Categorical Model of Disability

“The representational language of trait and deficit within which learning narratives are set offers children, teachers, parents, and other community members problematic identities and dispositions” (Johnston & Costello, 2005, p. 261). Children who are identified as learning disabled may be categorized, grouped with students who were given similar labels, and given instruction in reading which is focused on mastery of skills rather than development as readers (Allington, 1994, Allington & McGill-Franzen,

1989; Allington & Walmsley, 1995). Defining who is disabled and what makes them

disabled is a dilemma of historical significance because of its ties to the functions of both

assessment and instruction, and its contribution to over reliance on formal, high-stakes assessment measures.

The categorical, or medical, model is the traditional mode of identifying disability. By identifying physical or mental deficiencies, people are labeled with various disabling conditions. The medical definition of disability for a person who uses a wheelchair gives a name to a medical condition, for example arthritis, which impairs the person’s ability to walk. It places the “responsibility” for overcoming disability with the person and his or her medical condition (Saunders, 2004).

The categorical model is the dominant discourse for explaining why people do not fit societal and cultural norms. Within this model, issues of power and identity play a significant role. People who do not display abilities consistent with cultural and societal expectations are given tests of ability, that are designed to diagnose a ‘problem’ that lies

within the individual, disallowing him or her from full participation in society. When a

person is given the label of ‘reading disabled’ as a result of performance on selected

reading assessment measures, it places the responsibility for overcoming or dealing with

the disability on the shoulders of the individual.

In terms of identity development, categorization contributes to the development of

a literate identity that holds as its central component failure, inability, and lack of

confidence. Given a label such as reading disabled, students have difficulty escaping the consequences attached. McDermott (1993) described Adam, a boy labeled as learning

disabled, in terms of how his behaviors within various environments contributed to the

perpetuation of his label. McDermott observed that in school contexts, Adam had a more

difficult time meeting social expectations than in situations outside of school. Students

and his teacher expected him to not be successful based on past test scores and the

resulting label, and therefore he was not. To echo Stanovich’s Matthew Effects (1986), the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Adam’s label was a self-perpetuating phenomenon, encouraged by responses from his teacher, peers, society, and himself.

Given a label based on a deficit model of disability, Adam was assigned a literate identity as unable, unsuccessful, and uneducable. Such an identity is developed and sustained by the social environments in which students participate. The illogical, though prominent, use of the categorical model to define disability is in sharp contrast to the more viable alternative of placing disability within culture.

Cultural/Social Model of Disability

Alvermann (2001b) discussed this approach to identifying disabilities in terms of

the influence of culture on a reader’s developing identity. Alvermann identifies several

assumptions of the categorical approach to disability, including that struggling readers

have the potential to reach their grade-level potential given appropriate instruction. In addition, such an approach suggests that those who do not live up to grade-level expectations will be out of the race, so to speak, for privileges which come with being defined as a successful reader. Rather than placing the responsibility for difficulties squarely on the shoulders of students who struggle, Alvermann advocates for an approach which postulates that struggling readers are no different in terms of their needs as readers and as students than good readers. This approach, referred to as the “culture-as-disability

approach” (McDermott & Varenne, 1995), assumes that all of us come from cultures

which shape our perceptions of ourselves and of what is appropriate, and that we are all

part of the wider culture.

In a seminal work on the cultural model of disability, Deno (1970) referred to the

need for educational systems to adjust to children, rather than children having to adjust to

a system that is already failing them in numerous ways. She postulates that there is a

mismatch between children’s needs and the opportunities made available to them within

the educational system, resulting in some children being labeled disabled. Along a

similar vein, Coles (1989) identifies the “learning disabled” label as unreliable due to the

emphasis it places on what is occurring within the individual child to allow him or her to

fail, rather than on external factors, which, according to Deno (1970) are under the

teacher’s, not the child’s, control.

Rather than simply stating that a child’s culture should be accounted for in

diagnosis of disability, McDermott and Varenne (1995), as well as Coles (1989), set the disability within a social context. Disabilities, according to Coles (1989), are a result of the negation of certain societal norms as a result of biological differences, and based on the concomitant nature of social and biological differences. McDermott and Varenne

(1995) define disability as inadequate performance on culturally prescribed tasks.

Disability is a “display board for the problems of the system” (p. 341), and is culturally derived as a way to separate those who behave differently than culturally acceptable standards. Their theory for the misdiagnosis of disability is also set within the social context, and dictates that diagnosing disability involves shifting the focus from what is

wrong with the child’s performance, to what is wrong with the system.

D. Taylor (1988) advocated the use of “ethnographic evaluation for children,

families, and schools” (p. 67). Taylor asserts that the environments in which people are

situated must be analyzed to diagnosis disability, rather than the “in-the-head” knowledge

of people. Using people being considered for disabling labels as the informants for her

research, Taylor suggests that, “We have to get to know them so that we can eventually

build adequate descriptions of the environments of which their knowledge is constitutive

and in which it is displayed” (p. 68). Taylor sees disability as a non-categorical issue that

gets defined by the treatment. The work of Taylor is also in line with work in the area of

reading assessments concerning the critical nature of prior knowledge (Johnston, 1984)

and the work of Emihovich (1994) which recommends teachers rely first on classroom

based assessments before even looking at standardized test scores.

The methods still in place in most school systems for diagnosing disability do not

primarily consider the external influences on the child for labeling and educational

placement purposes, but rather uses IQ and performance on standardized measurements

to be sure that children are receiving the appropriate levels of support. Rather than

simply ignoring the medical model and reviewing a child’s culture to diagnosis disability, the important step to take is to consider how a child interacts in the social systems he or she is a part of on a regular basis. By looking at the social systems that are defining the child as disabled, we can define disability in terms of context instead of as within the child. Although researchers have typically embraced this type of evaluation, educators are a long way from ethnographic evaluation of disabilities, and still rely primarily on the categorical model (see Table 2.1).

Categorical/Medical Model Social/Cultural Model • Traditional mode of diagnosis of • Defines disability as a function of disability society • Gives a name to a medical • Places the responsibility on society condition for accommodating people with • Places the responsibility for disabilities overcoming disability with the • Preferred by people with disabilities person and the medical condition

Table 2.1: Theories of disability.

Assigning students a label based on the results of standardized test scores is damaging to

developing literate and social identities. Norm-referenced tests, in which students are

directly compared to their peers, have been shown to be particularly damaging to lower-

achieving students (Crooks, 1988). Typically, upon receiving a disabling label, students are assigned to special programs in which they receive instruction designed to help them be successful. All too often, however, this instruction does not reflect what was being learned in the “regular” classroom, but reduces reading to a set of isolated sub-skills

(Allington, 1994; Allington & McGill-Franzen, 1989; Allington & Walmsley, 1995).

Whenever students are categorized according to the medical model, a set of power relationships and negative identity processes ensues that places the child in the unfortunate position of failure and inequity.

Consistent with sociocultural theory, which is a dominant theoretical framework

of this study, cultural/social models have been discussed in recent literature. Dudley-

Marling (2004) describes learning disabilities as being situated in “activities and cultural

practices situated in the context of social relations rather than in the heads of individual

students” (p. 482). Current conceptions of identity, discussed in this review, position 29

identity as formed in relation with societal discourses, not as a process of individual

determination (Gee, 1990, 2000-2001). “From this perspective, learning and learning

problems, including the identity of ‘having LD’ do not reside in people’s heads as much

as in the complex of social interactions performed in a place called school that is itself situated in a broader social, political, and cultural context” (Dudley-Marling, 2004, p.

483). Within schools and individual classrooms, expectations are formed based on

cultural and social values. These cultural and social values vary from context to context,

and therefore so do definitions of failure. Dudley-Marling posits that identities are

formed by and are a part of social contexts. An identity as learning disabled, or as a

struggling reader, is contingent upon the interactions of “people, places, and activities”

(p. 485). Sociocultural theory, as explicated by Dudley-Marling, necessitates a view of

LD as not existing solely within a student, but rather within complex systems of

interactions that work together to produce such an identity for a student.

Struggling Readers and Identity

Struggling readers are labeled as such based on the results of assessments and

evaluations of their performance by teachers. It is important to look at the influence of

assessment and evaluation of reading abilities on the development of literate identity,

because reading assessment is in part a response to an individual’s performance based on

the larger discourses to which the interpreters subscribe, and validation of a student’s

worth as a reader in particular settings. Foucault’s discussion of the power of discourse

in shaping the objects of which it speaks (de Castell, 1999) provides evidence for the

claim that assessment and its surrounding discourses are major contributing factors to the

social identities of students. Foucault claims that discourses not only speak about

subjects, but they serve to create the subjects of which they speak (Sarup, 1993, p. 74).

“Rather than capturing an objective reality, such discourses create, reproduce, and mask relations of power and control” (P. Smith, 2001, p. 123). Therefore, when assessment discourse focuses on a student’s deficits, as identified on specific measures of reading ability, this shapes the identity development of the student as disabled. The results of assessments influence the ways in which teachers’ talk about students, and it is this discourse that shapes students’ conceptions of themselves as social and literate beings.

Students, by virtue of the nature of assessments are positioned in reference to others (Enciso, 2001), and assigned an identity as to what type of reader they are in comparison to peers their age. Positional identity has to do with “how one identifies one’s position relative to others, mediated through the way one feels comfortable or constrained” (Holland, Lachiotte, Skinner, & Cain, 1998, p. 127). Depending upon their ability to negotiate the “testing genre” (Reardon, 1990), students may experience success or failure, and the consequences of the results have profound implications for how they will be addressed, or positioned, and how they will position themselves, as readers. A negative label resulting from a poor test result is more difficult to overcome than a positive label is to lose once it is given (Allington, 2006). To further complicate matters,

Enciso (2001) discusses the injustice done to children when their previous understandings about reading, possibly as the joy of being carried away by a good book, are not valued in the assessment and evaluation process.

For example, talk to anyone who was ever a student about experiences in school, and in all likelihood a discussion surrounding positive or negative experiences with assessment will ensue. As Hanson (1993) describes, “The social person in contemporary

society is not so much described or evaluated by tests as constructed by them” (p. 4).

Students are subject to classroom based assessments and high-stakes, standardized

assessments, at multiple times and in multiple formats throughout their academic years.

The results of these assessments and the consequences they hold for students’ futures are

noted by students, teachers, parents, and other stakeholders in the assessment process.

Due to the fact that assessment results are mediated by people, “assessment practices are

always representational and interpretive” (Johnston & Costello, 2005. p. 261).

Assessment represents both the interpreters and those being evaluated, and the meaning

of the assessment is dependent upon who is interpreting the results and for what purpose.

Reading is also dependent upon the social and cultural definitions imposed.

Because reading assessment is linked with social and cultural processes, it is difficult and

inappropriate to attempt to determine a student’s true abilities in reading, as these abilities depend on the cultural model on which the assessment is based. “All measurements, whether physical, psychological or educational, are unreliable” (Wiliam,

2000b, p. 106). This fact poses problems for proponents of scientific assessment, who maintain that standardized, norm or criterion-referenced tests are able to capture what students ultimately know and can do in reading (Heap, 1980). The consequences this perspective on assessment has for social identity development, curriculum, and instruction are paramount: students who are assessed according to models of reading with which they have not been socialized are predestined to fail, and to subsequently receive handicapping labels. Assessment not only reflects social beliefs and values, it also enforces them by “insisting on certain representations of children and their identity”

(Johnston & Rogers, 2001, p. 379).

Teachers and students constantly negotiate for the point (Heap, 1985) of a lesson, which in reading lessons concerns what counts as reading in that context. Once a definition of reading is identified, participants can be held accountable for it. How they are held accountable for it, how they are asked to demonstrate their knowledge is in part a result of the cultural model at work in the context. Being held accountable for specific literacy practices is where the role of assessment comes into play. Teachers can and should design assessments that reflect the discourses of the classroom, but teachers are not the only people designing assessments. High-stakes, formalized testing measures enter into classrooms at many different levels, taking on positions of power and influencing the identity construction of students and teachers in far-reaching ways.

However, it is not only high-stakes tests that possess power within classroom discourses.

When assessments that are de-contextualized from classroom environments are given power and privilege over those that are situated within classroom ways of knowing, unfortunate dichotomies result over ability versus disability, and over who has the power to determine those conditions.

Holland et al. (1998) discuss the concept of figured worlds in relation to social

identity development and their discussion is applicable here. Both the regular classroom

and the special classroom are culturally figured worlds, in which participants are

positioned differently. Within each of these classrooms, there may be different norms for

behavior, participation, or achievement (Allington, 1994; Allington & McGill-Franzen,

1989). Participation in two distinct culturally figured worlds positions students in very

different ways in terms of their identity in relation to others. The role of the teacher,

peers, and parents takes on different functions and must be renegotiated as part of

developing social identity. “Figured worlds provide the contexts of meaning and action in which social positions and social relationships are named and conducted. They also provide the loci in which people fashion senses of self - that is, develop identities”

(Holland et al., 1998, p. 60). Within each of these connected, yet distinct, figured worlds, the student labeled with a disability takes on very different identities.

“Becoming literate involves developing identities, relationships, dispositions and

values as much as acquiring strategies for working with print” (Johnston & Costello,

2005, p. 256). Students who have a resilient literate identity are able to adapt to any

learning environment. Resilient learners are able to apply to any situation what they

know about what good readers do and are therefore considered successful readers. On

the other hand, brittle learners are not as adept at transferring and generalizing their

knowledge. These students are unsuccessful because of their inability to apply what they

know about reading to new situations.

So-called struggling readers whose identities are marked by unsuccessful efforts

at (or perhaps by resistance to) ‘getting reading right’ may have decidedly

different perceptions of how agency and autonomy work from those of their

teachers and other significant adults in their lives. (Alvermann, 2001a, p. 678)

Approaching students as either brittle or resilient in various situations is another

alternative to labeling them as disabled. Even children who are very successful students

can demonstrate brittleness in certain learning situations.

Teachers can encourage resilient literate identities in their students by providing

such opportunities as self-assessment, active participation in learning, and choice in

reading materials (Wixson & Pearson, 1998). Students who have a sense of agency also

have a sense of responsibility for their own learning, all of which contribute to the development of a resilient disposition. “Our goal is to teach children to view themselves as engaged readers and writers to show them that literacy is more about social action and meaning making than about recognizing and writing words accurately, though it also involves that” (Johnston, 2003, p. 90). Looking at disability through the lens of culture, rather than through one of deficit, allows teachers to help students build “identity kits”

(Gee, 1996) which account for the many ways in which literacy can be applied in their lives.

Assessment, as has been articulated here, has profound implications on the formation of social identity, curriculum, and instruction. For assessment to be effective at identifying what students know, the alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment must be clear. As students interact and participate with these three elements of the assessment triangle (Pellegrino, 2005; Pellegrino, Chudowsky, & Glaser, 2001), the social identities they compose will be consistent, strong, and positive. When there is a mismatch among any of these elements, students do not know what to make of what they are learning and how to apply it to their lives. Clear alignment between curriculum, instruction, and assessment processes is needed so that the social identities we wish for children to develop for participation in a democratic society are possible (Johnston,

1997).

Teachers know they are in the business of developing not just minds, but lives as well, and the social identities they help children form in school will remain with them for the rest of their lives. The powerful impact high quality teachers have on students has been well documented in the literature (Brophy, 1979; Darling-Hammond, 1999; Sanders

& Rivers, 1996). It is easy to think of students in terms of groups, such as grade levels,

learning styles, or deficits, and to think of teachers in terms of those who teach one way

or another, but the real work of teaching and learning occurs in the interactions between

individuals: a student and a teacher, or a student and a peer. Words and actions of

teachers have powerful impacts on students, and this understanding is essential to know if

we are going to accept and create students who understand the potential they have to

create identities for themselves which will allow them to participate in society in

productive and meaningful ways. Students are not passive participants in the

construction of their social and literate identity. Rather, students actively engage in

literacy practices by promoting, contesting, assimilating, and accommodating them as

part of their own cultural lives (Bloome & Katz, 1997; Street, 1993). In the following

section, approaches to teaching struggling readers that have been reported in the research

literature as successful will be described.

Successful Approaches for Teaching Struggling Readers

Duffy-Hester (1999) described several guiding principles that should be

considered when designing or implementing programs for struggling readers. They are:

(1) balance multiple theoretical perspectives; (2) justify every element practically and

theoretically; (3) teach word identification, comprehension, and vocabulary in

conjunction with authentic reading and writing tasks; (4) read aloud from a variety of genres; (5) base instruction on meaningful reading assessments; (6) teachers should be decision makers; (7) staff development should provide opportunities for reflection on practice; (8) rely on multiple goals for student success; (9) provide multiple contexts for student learning; and (10) support the reading growth of children of all abilities.

However, at the same time that these principles are put forth, Duffy-Hester also cautions

against the use of any single program to serve the needs of all struggling readers. “I am convinced that the teacher is more important and has a greater impact than any single, fixed, reading program, method, or approach” (p. 492). The approaches that are reviewed in the following pages meet some or all of the referenced criteria. However, all of these approaches have been identified as successful with some struggling readers some of the time. Their application to individual situations is dependent upon a host of contextual factors, such as student background, classroom environment, teacher background, and ability level of students. The approaches reviewed here will be divided into three categories, which emerged from the research literature: pull-out interventions, in-class interventions, and approaches which redefine instruction for struggling middle school readers.

Pull-Out Intervention Programs

Traditional instruction for struggling readers points to programs which pull

children out of the regular classroom environment for instruction in a different classroom

setting. Approaches to such instruction have been varied, but always involve evaluation

of students’ reading abilities through standardized and informal assessment measures to

determine eligibility. Typically, a reading level at least two grade levels below the

student’s actual grade level is a reason for concern (Caldwell & Leslie, 2005).

Instruction is provided by an intervention specialist, reading specialist, paraprofessional, or volunteer, and the programs’ curriculums vary based on the expertise of the teacher

(Allington, 2006).

As with any instructional approach, pull-out programs have both advantages and disadvantages. Pull-out programs have the potential for making children feel that they are failures, lowering their self-concept as readers and their desire to learn. Teachers may also experience this sense of failure at their perceived inability to meet the needs of the struggling reader within the regular classroom, and may write off responsibility for the student’s reading progress to the pull-out teacher (Juel, 1996). However, pull-out programs also have the potential to provide the intensity of instruction that struggling readers need. This type of instruction is difficult to provide within the regular classroom, so many schools rely on pull-out programs to provide highly specialized instruction to the students who need it most. Pull-put programs were developed in response to the inability of uniform instruction to meet the needs of all readers, thereby providing readers the type of instruction from which they can learn (Roller, 1996).

In-Class Interventions

Recently, the research literature on struggling readers has been overwhelmingly in support of in-class interventions that can be managed by the teacher, an assistant, or volunteers. Realizing that, “Struggling readers need more than effective short-term interventions; they also need effective reading instruction in their regular classroom programs” (Duffy-Hester, 1999, p. 481), researchers have focused on ways that the needs of struggling readers can be met in the classroom environment. In this way, the students gain the benefits of being a part of a classroom community of readers, and do not miss valuable instructional time from classroom teachers. In addition, interventions embedded within classroom instruction have the potential to benefit all students, not just those struggling with reading. These interventions range from simple recommendations of

ways to improve practice to specifically designed programs to support struggling readers.

All of them are meant to occur within the natural course of instruction, without students having to miss any class time.

Bomer (1999) spent a year in classrooms examining reading conferences that

occurred between the teacher and the students during independent reading workshop

time. This was a time for the students to work on their own reading interests within the classroom environment. Teachers use this time to confer with students about their reading in a one-on-one setting, discussing book selection, strategy use, writing, vocabulary, and other areas of need for the individual students. Bomer and his research team found the conferences productive strategies to help students build their identities as readers, asking them probing questions about their reading lives and helping them to articulate the answers. Through intensive, one-on-one time during the classroom instructional period, teachers were able to get to know students as readers and respond to their needs in meaningful ways.

Getting to know students as readers was identified by Broaddus and Ivey (2002) as an important element of the instruction provided to struggling readers. They recommended that teachers use interest inventories, interviews, and assessment information to help them compose a complete picture of their students as readers, rather than basing instructional decisions on the results of just one or two assessments.

Teachers who take the extra time to get to know their students’ backgrounds and interests will be better able to tailor instruction to meet their needs, which will lessen the need for so many readers to struggle with unfamiliar or difficult material.

Time spent reading was another factor mentioned by Broaddus and Ivey (2002) as being essential to the success of struggling readers, and it is also an element that surfaced repeatedly throughout the research literature (Allington, 2006; Baker, 2002; Beers, 2003).

Echoing the infamous “Matthew effects” in reading set forth by Stanovich (1986), study after study has shown that time spent reading is one of the most powerful factors in the improvement of reading ability. The National Reading Panel (2000), in a review of research related to fluency, stated “There is common agreement that fluency develops from reading practice” (p. 3-1). While the National Reading Panel identified improvement of oral reading through instructional procedures as more effective than encouraging students to read more on their own, this was based on the paucity of research in the area of time spent reading that was able to meet the Panel’s criteria. As will be discussed later, the influence of choice and the ability to choose appropriate books has been identified as an essential ingredient for success in independent reading for struggling readers. Once students find a text they can both read and enjoy, the time they spend reading can be a positive factor in their development as readers.

Teaching visualization to aid in comprehension was an approach found to be successful in a study conducted by Hibbing and Rankin-Erickson (2003). Lack of background knowledge and experiences make it difficult for struggling readers to construct visual images in their minds. These researchers used strategies, such as having students imagine a television screen in their minds as they read, to help them create visual images. In addition, the use of drawings proved effective in helping students construct visual images of texts. Teachers modeled this strategy and then asked the students to try it independently when reading. Both approaches helped to clarify confusion and make

the text more concrete for the students. Use of text illustrations, picture books to build prior knowledge, and movie clips to help students form stronger visual images were other important components to this approach. Given a strategy to help them construct meaning, struggling readers were able to apply it successfully to their own reading.

Another comprehension strategy that has proved useful for struggling readers is talking about their reading with peers (Moran & Carson, 2003). “Conversation sparks” encourage students to “say something” about the texts they are reading to a partner. With guidance from a teacher, students’ conversation sparks reach deeper and deeper levels.

Given a useful strategy to aid in comprehension of difficult texts, along with careful guidance from a teacher, struggling readers are able to apply and use these strategies for their own purposes. Hill (1998) documented the benefits for struggling readers when independent reading time was seen as “not just for self or between teacher and self, but instead, information and thinking were always shared with a friend, small group, or the entire class” (p. 84). Exploring the social nature of the reading process in class assists struggling readers in seeing that their responses to literature have value and can be shared with others. As Hill states further, “reading and writing then became the acceptable social avenue for students to achieve recognition” (p. 84). For struggling readers, whose sole source of recognition may have been their disability, the ability to be recognized by their peers as having something valuable to say can revolutionize their attitudes towards reading.

Though stated repeatedly in the research literature, the value of access to reading materials and sufficient time to read them cannot be overstated. “Poor readers cannot narrow their achievement deficit with only equivalent instructional time, even if they

were to learn with equal efficiency” (Allington, 1983, p. 549). Ivey’s (2000) work with

sixth grade struggling readers revealed that students felt that time alone with books

helped them to develop their interest in reading and to make sense of what they read.

Several studies (Bomer, 1999; Carter & Harris, 1982; Kos, 1991) revealed that what

middle school struggling readers want most from their teachers is time to read and

assistance in choosing books that they can both read and enjoy. Beers (1998) documented the voices of middle school readers considered aliterate because of their ability to read, but refusal to do so. These readers mentioned how they felt lost and directionless in a library full of books to choose from, because they did not know where to look for books they could read and enjoy. Beers noticed that when a box of about 30 books was placed in the classroom labeled “Good Books,” these readers were able to choose appropriate books when their choices were narrowed.

It is important to explicitly teach comprehension strategies using approaches such

as think alouds (Wilhelm, 2001; Woode, 2003). “A set of comprehension strategies that

fit together to foster interactive reading has been found to be useful for classroom teachers and struggling readers” (Primeaux, 2000, p. 539). Think alouds provide a model for struggling readers of how to navigate a text and construct meaning. In a think aloud,

the teacher shares a text with the class, pausing to make statements related to his or her

thinking about the text. Once students understand the process, they can practice think

alouds on their own or with partners. Encouraging students to write their thoughts down

in the margins or on Post-it notes as they read is an effective way to bring the think aloud

process to independent reading. Hill (1998) found that struggling readers who were

taught to use the think aloud strategy were able to visualize and comprehend the texts

they read more effectively.

Many struggling readers will need instruction devoted to developing fluent

reading, which should be provided to them in easy texts that they can practice reading

aloud (Allington, 1983; Ivey & Broaddus, 2000). Reader’s Theater is also an excellent

opportunity for students to practice reading aloud, develop fluency, and become engaged

with texts. In Reader’s Theater, students practice a text to read aloud as a group, dividing

up speaking roles and narrator pieces. The practice and anticipation of performing a

dramatic interpretation is motivating and provides practice in reading text aloud

(Allington, 2006; Edmiston, Enciso, & King, 1987). Hill (1998) also found that the use

of charades, in which students must read a line of text silently to themselves then act out

its meaning, helped readers to improve their silent reading abilities, as well as their

overall fluency.

One-to-One Tutoring

“Studies of at-risk readers served by intervention programs have focused on the

importance of a one-(to)-one tutoring model” (Broaddus & Bloodgood, 1999, p. 429).

There must be a clear link between the classroom instruction and tutoring program for it to be effective, or students have to deal with conflicting methodologies between the teacher and the tutor (Juel, 1996).

Cross-age tutoring is an approach to tutoring that has shown promise for developing the reading abilities of both the tutor and the tutee (Juel, 1996; Thrope &

Wood, 2000). In Juel’s (1996) study mentioned above, college students who struggled with grade-level reading tutored first graders in reading and showed considerable gains in

their own reading abilities, as well. Thrope and Wood (2000) discussed the value of immediate feedback to the tutee, as well as gains in self-confidence on the part of the

tutor. The key to success in this and any other tutoring program was the training

provided the tutor in reading skills and strategies. Even in programs that do not include a

cross-age component, trained tutors who have knowledge of the curriculum required by

the school and of research based approaches to reading instruction are a critical component for success, especially in cases where a trained and licensed teacher is not available.

Jacobson et al. (2001) conducted a study on the benefits of cross-age tutoring for

middle school struggling readers. Using seventh grade struggling readers as the tutors for

third grade students, these researchers found success in improving the reading abilities of both groups of students. The seventh graders had real purposes for learning the reading strategies they were being taught in class, as well as accountability to be able to explain it to their tutees. The use of picture books and easy readers with the third graders also made these books acceptable for the middle school students to be reading. Cross-age

tutoring is an example of a pull-out program that works because of its ability to mirror

classroom pedagogy and provide an opportunity for students to apply what they are

learning to an authentic situation.

Reading Recovery is “an early instructional intervention that attempts to prevent

eventual failure in learning to read by providing an intensive, highly structured program

of instruction to at-risk children” (Shanahan & Barr, 1995, p. 958). Reading Recovery

involves the use of trained teachers to tutor first grade students at-risk for reading failure

using a common framework. Reading Recovery is an example of the benefits of the use

of trained teachers as tutors for children struggling with reading (Wasik & Slavin, 1993).

In this program, trained teachers are employed as tutors in the school, allowing them to focus their time on working one-to-one with children. The framework used in Reading

Recovery was the basis for the framework used by the teachers in the present study.

“The success of this type of intervention depends on the quality of the teaching” (Wasik

& Slavin, 1993, p. 963). Through intense training, Reading Recovery prepares teachers to deliver high-quality instruction to students at-risk for failure in a one-to-one situation.

In a review of five tutoring programs, Wasik and Slavin (1993) summarized the

effectiveness of three programs that utilized trained teachers as the tutors, including

Reading Recovery, and two programs that used paraprofessionals. Although the use of

peers, volunteers, and paraprofessionals as tutors has been widely covered in the research

literature (Shanahan, 1998; Wasik & Slavin, 1993), “programs using certified teachers as

tutors appeared to obtain substantially larger impacts than those using paraprofessionals”

(Wasik & Slavin, 1993, p. 196). As stated above, the use of trained teachers will not

guarantee success in tutoring, but high-quality instruction increases the likelihood that

students will make gains in reading as a result of the tutoring (Shanahan, 1998).

In a quasi-experimental study comparing five programs designed to assist first

graders at-risk for reading failure, Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, and Seltzer (1994)

manipulated variables, such as amount of teacher training, ratio of students to teacher,

and the lesson framework, to see which had a greater effect on student achievement.

They found that a critical element to the success of the program was the extent of teacher

training. The authors also found that one-to-one instruction had a bigger effect on student performance than small group instruction. Programs with extensive teacher

education components and one-to-one instruction, such as Reading Recovery, were found

to be more effective at increasing students’ reading abilities than those without such

training and instruction. Juel (1996) found that tutoring programs are effective because

of the individualized instruction afforded the tutee. The attention and focus of a

dedicated and trained teacher working one-to-one to assess and instruct a child in reading

cannot be replicated in a whole classroom environment. What is clear from the research

on one-to-one tutoring is that the chances of tutoring being effective in increasing

students’ reading abilities is greater when the instruction is delivered from a trained

teacher familiar with critical aspects of the reading process.

Re-Conceptualizing Approaches to Instruction

While success in working with struggling readers has been found in both pull-out

and in-class intervention programs, what is recommended by many in the research is a re-

conceptualization of instructional designs for struggling readers. “Good and poor readers

differ in their reading ability as much because of differences in instruction as variations in

individual learning styles or aptitudes” (Allington, 1983, p. 548). As stated by Allington

and Walmsley (1995), there is “no quick fix” for readers who struggle with reading.

Rather than a new program, pull-out or in class, what is needed is a complete re-

conceptualization of instruction in order to better serve the needs of all readers, not just those struggling with reading.

The goal of tutoring programs, small group work, increased strategy use, time to

read, and other interventions for struggling readers is in part to increase the intensity of

the instruction in reading allowed them. The research supports the need for intense, one-

to-one instruction for those struggling with reading, but currently schools are not

configured to offer this type of instruction. Allowing blocks of time for instruction

(Allington, 2006) has become more prevalent. Struggling readers have been shown to benefit from these extended periods of instructional time in reading (Primeaux, 2000).

By creating a language arts block of 75 minutes or more, teachers have more time to offer a variety of authentic experiences with reading, such as independent reading time, read alouds, and shared reading, all of which are recommended as effective strategies for helping struggling readers (Ivey, 1999b).

Allington’s (2006) after school model shows a great deal of promise, especially

for schools experiencing difficulty finding extra time during the school day.

I can envision an after-school program that rotates students among large-group,

small-group, and tutorial activities throughout a 90- or 120-minute period. I can

envision students selecting from art, drama, music, and physical education

activities as well as selecting particular themes that they will read and write and

create in. I can see large groups of children snuggled about with books or

magazines they have selected to read for the next thirty to forty-five minutes. I

can see groups of five to seven students working on a script developed from a

novel they’ve read, readying themselves for a short dramatic enactment. All the

while some children come and go from their tutoring sessions. (pp. 128-129)

Such a program involves creative and flexible scheduling on the part of teachers and administrators in order to staff it with highly qualified teachers of reading, or at the very least highly trained volunteers. Allington discusses how some students will need to attend such a program every day, while others may only need to attend once or twice a week.

Flexibility in the approach to scheduling and planning is essential, and is at the heart of these re-conceptualizations of instruction.

A study by Williams (2001) showed the potential of taking special education

programs beyond the basic skills approach that Allington (1994) and Allington and

Walmsley (1995) discussed as being so predominate in special programs for struggling

readers. Williams employed a reading workshop approach with her middle school

resource room for struggling readers. Incorporating elements such as read alouds, mini

lessons, independent reading, guided reading, conferencing, and community building, the approach gave the students authentic purposes for reading, opportunities to practice their skills and strategies, and the chance to belong to a community of readers working towards similar goals. “Connecting with others through books broadens the reading experience beyond just entertainment or learning. Reading connects us to others, sometimes when we need them most” (Williams, 2001, p. 597).

In addition, S. V. Taylor (2000) utilized a reader’s workshop approach with

troubled teenagers. She found that “many of the students gained new literacy experiences

and subsequently reexamined their previous perceptions of reading” (p. 1081). Rather

than employing a basic-skills approach, which these teenagers had faced year after year

with little success, the reader’s workshop approach was used to help the teens see

authentic purposes for reading in their own lives. By re-conceptualizing the approach to

reading instruction for troubled and struggling teens, Taylor was able to improve their

reading skills in ways that will be proven beyond their scores on standardized tests.

Roller (1996) documented the use of a workshop approach with struggling readers

in a summer reading program. The title of her book, Variability Not Disability,

emphasizes why she felt this approach was so successful with struggling readers. “Rather

than view children as capable or disabled, workshop classrooms assume that children are

different, that each child is unique and has unique interests and abilities, and that

differences are normal” (p. 7). Workshop classrooms as part of the instruction provided

to struggling readers requires a re-conceptualization of instruction and the reorganization

of schools. Roller acknowledges that many schools are not designed to support such an

approach, but the success it had in the summer reading program warrants the exploration

of how to make it work for all schools.

Rather than accepting the status quo, educators need to consider the approaches

presented in the research as viable alternatives. These approaches keep in mind the best

interests of children. In the end, everyone will benefit from children who are receiving

the opportunities they need to develop as readers. This study utilized the context of a

one-to-one tutoring program in which classroom teachers selected one of their own

students for intensive tutoring over the summer. In addition, the tutoring took place as

part of a clinical reading course in a master’s degree program, so the teachers received

intensive training in high-quality reading instruction.

Recommendations for Practice

In addition to the recommendations previously discussed throughout this review,

there are several other recommendations for practice that have emerged from this review.

“Addressing the needs of struggling readers requires a comprehensive and sustained

intervention effort” (Allington, 2006, p. 141), and it is through getting to know each

student as a reader and responding to his or her individual needs with research based practices that educators can begin to eliminate the struggle to read. Creating a

community of readers, differentiating instructional approaches, approaching learning

from a constructivist perspective, and quality professional development for teachers are the recommendations which will be discussed in this section. Recommendations that

were mentioned in earlier sections of this review focused on specific instructional

approaches that had been identified as successful in the research literature on reading.

The recommendations for practice in this section are more broadly based and are

intended to improve classroom instruction for struggling readers, regardless of specific

programs or approaches adopted.

Creating a Community of Readers

As a middle school teacher, I can remember how important it was to establish a

strong classroom community from the very beginning of the school year. Middle school students place high value on their relationships with peers and on being accepted by their peers and teachers. All struggling readers depend on this supportive environment. They need to know that their needs will be supported, that it is appropriate to read easy books sometimes, and that everyone in the class is working to improve in one way or another.

“Successful environments for struggling middle school readers involve interaction among students and interaction between students and teachers during literacy activities” (Ivey,

1999b, p. 375).

One of the most effective ways in which to create such a classroom community is through the use of teacher read-alouds. Not only do read-alouds make picture books more acceptable to middle school students, they provide a context for discussion and a way for students to build common ground about topics of discussion. As Ivey (1999b) discusses, read-alouds demonstrate to struggling readers the value books hold in the

teacher’s life and model for students how to share books with peers. Both of these

experiences struggling readers often have had limited exposure to throughout their lives.

Several of the instructional approaches discussed previously seemed also worthwhile in creating a classroom community. One of these is the reader’s workshop approach (Bomer, 1999; Fountas & Pinnell, 1996; S. V. Taylor, 2000; Williams, 2001).

What is important is that students feel comfortable reading books at their level, are able to share their reading with their peers, and experience engagement with reading within a supportive environment. “The philosophy of a workshop classroom is particularly appropriate for struggling readers because it is founded in the notion that individual children within the same classroom can do a variety of literacy activities at once, thus accommodating variability between students” (Ivey, 1999b, p. 380). Workshop classrooms provide a context for developing a community of learners, and they also allow teachers to adapt instruction to meet the needs of all learners, a point that is included in the next recommendation.

Differentiate Instructional Approaches

“Effective instruction is characterized by adaptation of the standard form of instruction in ways that better meet the needs of individual students” (Allington, 2006, p.

149). One of the most effective interventions for students struggling with reading focuses on the intensity of instruction provided by expert teachers (Allington, 2006; Snow, Burns,

& Griffin, 1998). As was mentioned earlier in this paper, there are no “quick fixes”

(Allington & Walmsley, 1995) for students struggling with reading, and any instructional approach will not be appropriate for all readers. It is important that the principles discussed throughout this paper are taken into account in evaluating instructional

approaches. Teachers should also differentiate instruction to meet the varied needs of struggling readers. “Two critical responsibilities for teachers are to match instruction to individual student development and to provide contexts in which students can become engaged in reading” (Ivey & Broaddus, 2000, p. 69).

One of the ways to differentiate instruction to make it more effective for struggling readers is to increase the intensity by providing opportunities for one-on-one and small group participation. Small-group instruction increases the intensity when one- on-one instruction is not available (Woode, 2003), but one-on-one instruction is most desirable in terms of intensity and opportunity for struggling readers to get the specific assistance that they need. When teachers are able to work with students in small groups or one-on-one, attention can be paid to the areas the struggling readers need most, such as fluency, word identification, vocabulary, or comprehension. Another benefit of varying instruction between large group, small group, and one-on-one experience is that reading and learning are social, and students must be prepared to adjust to the demands of different situations as readers (Alvermann, 2001a).

Teachers often do not spend enough time differentiating instruction to meet the wide range of needs in their classrooms (Tomlinson, Moon, & Callahan, 1998). It is recommended that more attention is devoted to the differentiation of instruction to meet the needs of all readers. Teachers need to understand how to provide a diverse range of instruction to meet the diverse needs of the students who sit before them (Ivey &

Broaddus, 2000).

Emphasize Strengths, not Deficits

A focus on students’ deficits, rather than their strengths, can often lead to negative

labeling and placement in special programs. The recommendations provided here are

meant to reduce the overall placement rate of students in special programs. These

recommendations are designed to meet the needs of varied learners. However, without

an overall approach to learning which emphasizes strengths over deficits, the effective

application of these approaches will be challenging.

Adolescents who struggle to read in subject area classrooms deserve

instruction that is developmentally, culturally, and linguistically

responsive to their needs. To be effective, such instruction must be

embedded in the regular curriculum and address differences in their

abilities to read, write, and communicate orally as strengths, not as

deficits. (Alvermann, 2001b, p. 12)

A theory of learning that allows for the emphasis on strengths over deficits is social constructivism (Primeaux, 2000). “A fundamental notion of social constructivism is that development has social origins” (Trent, Artiles, & Englert, 1998, p. 298). Deficits do not always reside within the child in behavior or genetic terms; rather, often they reside outside of the child’s control, in family, community, and other social arenas (Trent et al., 1998). Some impairments are not apparent until they manifest themselves in certain social situations. Deficits are not inherently biological in nature, but also influenced by societal expectations.

A reliance on Vygotsky’s theory of the zone of proximal development would aid

in working with struggling readers, as long as it is understood that each student will have

a unique zone of proximal development (ZPD), and that there may be little consistency across ages and grades (Primeaux, 2000). Vygotsky’s theories are based on social constructivist principles, and take into account the fact that learning occurs in social environments, but is also an individual construction of knowledge. Approaching reading as a developmental process, rather than one in which students must pass through distinct stages at appropriate grade levels, allows for the variety that exists in the reading development of good readers. Rather than seeing a student as reading two grade levels below where he or she should be, educators can see reading as a developmental process that accepts the student where he or she is and allows the reader to move forward on his or her own schedule (Ivey & Broaddus, 2000). In environments which emphasize high- stakes testing and grade level performance, this is a difficult view to take, but by providing students who are reading below their peers with appropriate instruction at their level, they have the potential to progress more rapidly to grade level performance.

Delpit (1995) emphasizes that the most effective way for teachers to be able to identify and teach to students’ strengths is by gaining knowledge of their lives outside of school. As was mentioned earlier, students labeled as struggling readers in classroom environments often have complex literate lives in which they are successful readers

(Hinchman et al., 2003). As Delpit (1995) states, “knowledge about culture is but one tool that educators may make use of when devising solutions for a school’s difficulty in educating diverse children” (p. 167). Getting to know individual students, as well as their broader cultural backgrounds, is critical to getting to know who they are as readers, as well as getting to know their social identities.

Professional Development

Ivey (2000) included in her list of recommendations for improving the reading instruction of middle school struggling readers to “develop better reading teachers instead of looking for better reading programs” (p. 2). It has been stated repeatedly in the research literature (Duffy-Hester, 1999; Ivey, 2000; Snow et al., 1998) that the most effective intervention for a child struggling with reading is an effective teacher.

Historically there has been a misunderstanding concerning the remediation of reading difficulties focused on the belief that one program has the potential to help all children learn to read. As this paper has indicated, that is improbable.

Dillon (1989) studied the effect one teacher could have on struggling adolescent readers’ desire to learn. This study demonstrated that teachers who create open, risk-free environments and are sensitive to the cultural backgrounds of their students are better able to motivate their students to want to read and to learn. It also underscored the immense power an effective teacher can have over a student functioning “on the edges” in terms of motivation and literate development.

Expanding what teachers know will also expand how and what they teach

(Allington, 2006). Initiatives such as book clubs, inquiry projects, professional dialogue, and other programs which engage teachers in professional development to improve practice have shown promise in elevating the knowledge base of classroom teachers.

Instructional programs marketed for struggling readers are not seen as the only answer to helping struggling readers, rather, “professional development is seen as an ongoing process with the goal of teachers taking ownership of programs” (Broaddus &

Bloodgood, 1999, p. 430).

Another approach to providing professional resources for teachers is the use of reading specialists.

Schools that lack or have abandoned reading specialist positions need to

reexamine their needs for specialists to ensure well-trained staff are

available for intervention with children and for ongoing support to

classroom teachers. Although volunteer tutors can provide valuable

practice and motivational support for children learning to read, they

should not be expected to provide primary reading instruction or to

instruct children with serious reading problems. (Snow, Burns, & Griffin,

1998, p. 333)

Reading specialists play a variety of roles in schools, not the least of which is professional support to teachers. By providing instructional support through co-teaching, planning, and collaboration, reading specialists act as the experts in the area of reading instruction to which teachers can turn not necessarily to refer students out of their classrooms, but to gain insight into instructional approaches that may be successful.

“Where no instructional support exists, there appears to be an over-referral and inappropriate placement of children who have reading problems into special education programs” (International Reading Association, 2000, p. 2). Reading specialists and accompanying professional development, can help teachers be confident and equipped to meet the needs of struggling readers within their classroom environments, rather than relying on external support that removes students from their classrooms.

Summary

In this section, research related to struggling readers was discussed. First, various methods of identifying and describing struggling readers was reviewed. Next, approaches to instruction for struggling readers was discussed Finally, recommendations for practice based on the research reviewed was provided.

The teachers in this study, although working in a one-to-one situation, created a community between themselves and the students by developing relationships, shared goals, and common experiences around reading. Since they were working with students they knew well as readers, they were able to provide differentiated instruction to meet their specific needs, rather than a predetermined sequence of instructional steps. Through the process of assessment, evaluation, and instruction, the teachers in this study sought to address both strengths and deficits in their students’ reading abilities. Finally, as part of

the course, the teachers received 6 weeks of intensive professional development in the

assessment, evaluation, and instruction of struggling readers that they had the opportunity

to implement through the tutoring sessions. This study seeks to explore, through

observation, interviews, and document analysis, how these principles of instructing

struggling readers play out in the interactions between teachers and students within one-

to-one tutoring situations to influence the identity development of struggling readers.

Teacher-Student Interactions

There has been a wealth of studies in the areas of teacher-student interactions, but

many of them are dated, and many of them have focused on mathematics, science, or

special education. Very few studies have studied the interactions between teachers and

the students they consider struggling readers. Further, of the studies that have examined

teacher-student interactions, few have focused specifically on the influence these

interactions may have on students’ literate identities. This connection between teacher-

student interactions and the development of identity in struggling readers has not been

well documented, and is a gap in the research this study aims to address. This section

will discuss the studies related to teacher-student interactions from a traditional

psychological perspective first. Then, research related to teacher-student interactions

from a sociocultural perspective will be discussed.

Psychological Approaches to Teacher-Student Interactions

Research conducted by Brophy in the 1970s is still cited today in studies related

to teacher-student interactions. In their book on teacher-student relationships, Brophy

and Good (1974) discuss the ways “differential teacher attitudes and expectations begin

to affect teacher-student interaction patterns” (p. v). Although dated, their work provides

an important perspective for the present study. Brophy and Good stress the importance

of examining individual differences of teacher-student interactions within classrooms,

and of looking across classrooms to compare the interaction styles of individual teachers.

Although Brophy and Good’s research was focused on the classroom context, the

importance of looking at individual differences in teachers and students applies to the

present study. “On the basis of their perceptions about individual students, then, teachers develop attitudes towards those students and expectations about what the students are going to be like in the future” (p. 27).

In a functional analysis of the use of teacher praise, Brophy (1981) determined that teacher praise was a function of teachers’ perceptions of student needs, rather than by

the actual performance of the student. Praise was also found to be reactive and elicited

by students themselves, rather than intentionally doled out by teachers. Brophy identified

several categories of praise used by teachers in their interactions with students, based on

his review of other studies and his own observations. Using these categories, Brophy discussed how praise functioned within teacher-student interactions, and the differential

effect it could have on students. Referring to praise that is given spontaneously in

response to well done responses, Brophy stated, “Ironically, this kind of praise, which is

given spontaneously rather than as part of a systematic effort to reinforce, probably is the

most reinforcing in its effects on students” (p. 17). Other types of praise discussed were

more intentional and were not indicated to have as positive of an effect on student

behavior or performance. Brophy found that praise that is constantly given to students,

regardless of the quality of their performance, became ambiguous to students, whereas

praise that was contingent on success was valued as feedback that the student had been

successful. Finally, Brophy found that a key aspect of praise in teacher-student

interactions was the attribute the teacher attached to it. “Thus, a teacher who praises

students’ success and tells them that they are smart may teach them to attribute their

success to a stable ability factor, but teachers who praise students for working hard

enough to succeed will train the students to attribute their success to unstable effort

factors” (p. 23). Brophy’s research is foundational in understanding teacher-student

interaction patterns.

Studies have been completed surrounding the interaction patterns of teachers and

students in at-risk populations, such as those with emotional/behavior disorders and from

urban areas. Building on Brophy and Good’s (1974) finding that teachers influence

students’ behaviors within interactions, and that students exert influence on teachers’ behaviors within interactions, Sutherland and Morgan (2003) employed a transactional model to analyze the ways in which the teacher and the student reciprocally influenced each others’ behaviors within a series of interactions. The transactional model they used emphasizes the influences of the environment and their past experiences. “Thus, a student’s behavior at any point in time is not the result strictly of the teacher’s behavior, or even the student’s own previous behavior. Instead, the student’s latest behavior results from an accumulation of interactions between the student and the environment, including the teacher” (p. 33). The authors state that the transactional model suggests that not only do teachers and students influence one another, but other factors may also influence behavior during an interaction. The transactional model was used in this work to demonstrate that students’ problem behaviors may be a result of a variety of factors, one of which being the interactions that occur between the teacher and the student throughout the lesson.

As an extension of the discussion on the reciprocal nature of teacher-student interactions, the work of Baker (1999) may be cited to highlight the importance of the relationship between the teacher and student on the quality of these interactions. In this study, Baker investigated teacher-student relationships and interactions as they related to low-income, urban, African-American students’ satisfaction with school. “Students’ interactions with teachers and the quality of their relationships are potential influences on the development of these school-related cognitions and attitudes” (p. 59). Baker used observations, interviews, and self-reports of student-teacher relationships from a sample of 61 third, fourth, and fifth graders reporting either high or low satisfaction with school

to examine the impact of the teacher-student relationships. The results of Baker’s study point to the recommendation for the use of structures that encourage the development of positive relationships and opportunities for one-to-one interactions between teachers and students, such as classroom communities, looping, and developmentally oriented curriculum.

In a follow-up study on a study of young children identified as at risk and classroom dynamics, Montague and Rinaldi (2001) used the Brophy-Good Dyadic

Interactions System to “collect quantitative data about the nature of student-teacher interactions in the classroom” (p. 78). Using students identified as at-risk for learning disabilities or emotional/behavioral disorders as participants, the researchers analyzed the data for the interactions between teachers and students, students and peers, students’ self perception of their abilities in the classroom, and time spent academically engaged. In terms of the teacher-student interactions, the researchers found that the students progressed developmentally in terms of their awareness of their teachers’ negative behaviors towards them. “Some time between 8 and 10 years of age…they seem to become conscious of their teachers’ negativity and low expectations, and consequently, begin to view themselves more negatively, hold lower self-expectations, and see themselves as less competent academically” (p. 82). Montague and Rinaldi provide further support for the theory that teachers hold powerful sway over students’ responses to interactions.

Furthering the perspective that teachers interact differently with students they perceive as having lower ability, Grant and Rothenberg (1986) studied teacher-student interactions in first grade reading groups. They studied reading groups in eight

classrooms using analysis of observations. Results showed differences in the types of interactions that occurred within high and low ability groups within blue-collar and white-collar communities. These differences resulted in inequitable learning opportunities for the groups at the lower end of both ability and socioeconomic status.

The authors of the study did not attribute these differences to purposeful exclusion of the lower groups on the part of the teachers. “We believe instead that most differences in teacher treatment of groups are motivated by teachers’ perceptions about the most appropriate modes of teaching students at each level” (p. 46). This study was conducted in groups and did not address the uniqueness of individual teacher-student interactions.

In an investigation of the influence of student behaviors and student status factors, such as achievement, on teacher behaviors, Pflaum, Pascarella, Boswick, and Auer

(1980) found that though teacher behaviors were influenced by students’ status as a reader, they were not influenced by students’ actual reading behaviors. This study provides further support for the case that teachers interact with students differently based on their beliefs about their ability. In addition, this study posits the theory that teachers provide different types of support to lower readers because of a perceived need for certain levels of support. In this study, the teachers provided greater amounts of grapho- phonemic cues to students of lower ability than to those of higher ability. This finding is also supported by Allington’s (1980) study of teacher interruption behaviors, in which he found that teachers interrupted poor readers on 74% of their errors, while they interrupted good readers on 31% of their errors. Allington also found that graphophonic cues were most commonly given to poor readers, while good readers received greater amounts of

semantic-syntactic cues. Taken together, these studies reveal the differences in teacher-

student interactions between students defined as either good or poor readers.

Cohen (1972), in a piece on the contribution of sociology to research on teacher- student interactions, called for research that considered the variability in teaching practices by using “a very specific curriculum or instructional system (p. 442)” to direct the teachers’ behavior. She also recommended that research on teacher-student interactions be restricted to “situations where there is some kind of a rationale for the relationship between the teacher’s activities and particular learning outcomes in the student” (p. 443). Finally, Cohen stated that sociology could contribute to the research

on teacher-student interactions and the understanding of the classroom as a complex

social system in need of analysis beyond a cause and effect model. Foregrounding the

transactional model of Sutherland and Morgan (2003), Cohen states that teacher-student

interactions are influenced by both participants as well as other factors outside of the

immediate interaction. “This kind of a characterization of learning in the classroom calls

for theories capable of handling feedback effects and processes which change over time”

(Cohen, p. 444). Written in 1972, Cohen’s writing called for the type of analyses of

teacher-student interactions that will be discussed below.

Approaching the analysis of teacher-student interactions from less of a causal approach and more of a descriptive one, O’Connor and Michaels (1993) discuss the concept of “revoicing” within teacher-student interactions. Revoicing involves the teacher repeating back what a student has offered to the interaction to check for understanding and clarity. According to the authors of this microanalysis, revoicing

“affords the teacher the tools to coordinate the elements of academic task structure and

social participation structure, while simultaneously bringing students into the process of

intellectual socialization” (p. 319). Revoicing, then, has implications for both student

identity development and academic progress because it informs the student about the role

he or she should take in the interactions. Revoicing is contrasted with the Initiation-

Response-Evaluation (IRE) sequence used to analyze classroom discourse. While the

Evaluation portion of the IRE positions the teacher as more knowledgeable and powerful

within the interaction, O’Connor and Michaels claim that revoicing places participants on

more equal footing. Through revoicing, the student is afforded opportunities to provide

input on the evaluation of the response, rather than the teacher claiming responsibility for this move.

Cochran-Smith’s (1984) ethnographic study analyzed the interactions that occurred in preschool storyreading events, finding three types of interactions: readiness for reading, life-to-text interactions, and text-to-life interactions. The focus of her descriptions of these interactions was not on the effects they had on the teachers and students, but rather on the ways in which these interactions played out in storyreading events, providing valuable insight into the literacy of the young children involved in the study. As an ethnographic study, this study provides insights into the types of interactions occurring within literacy events that were not possible in the studies

discussed previously. This study provides a link to the research related to sociocultural

theory that will be discussed in the next section, as it represents an approach to teacher-

student interactions that focuses on the way in which they play out in teaching-learning

situations.

Sociocultural Approaches to Teacher-Student Interactions

Recent work on teacher-student interactions has focused on sociocultural

perspectives on instruction, namely the work of Vygotsky. Sociocultural theory is

predicated on the consideration of both the individual and the social in interactions. In particular, Vygotsky’s work focused on the interactions in the teacher-student dyad

(Wertsch, 1991). Discussing the formation of sociocultural theory out of more traditional

psychological theories, Cole (1985) described the process as one in which adult cognitive

processes were seen as internal transformations of social norms for interaction. Vygotsky

theorized that learning was an interactional process involving “shifts in control or

responsibility” reciprocally from the student to the teacher. This shifting control was

called the “zone of proximal development.” Vygotsky identified the importance of a

more knowledgeable other in the learning process, an adult who can guide the child

through the zone of proximal development, the place in which optimum learning can

occur. The zone of proximal development is the area of ability in which the child can

master the material with the support and guidance of the adult. Cole described the work

of Childs and Greenfield (1980), which demonstrated the zone of proximal development

through the process of learning to weave in a Mexican community. In this context, “adult

talk is also tied to the level of the child’s skill and the specific task at issue” (Cole, 1985,

p. 157). Interactions between the teacher and the student, in this case the adult and the

child, are dependent upon the difficulty of the activity being performed.

Research on the zone of proximal development has included how teachers and

students interact to provide support at the student’s point of difficulty. “A goal for

sociocultural theorists is the sustained development of methodological approaches to

educational and psychological research that focus on process and provide ways of

documenting change and transformation” (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996, p. 204).

Hedegaard (1990) stated that the zone of proximal development is created by instruction,

“Thus the zone of proximal development is an analytical tool necessary to plan

instruction and explain its results (p. 350). In this study, the planning of instruction

according to a predetermined set of principles, based on Vygotskian principles, over a 3-

year period was studied, from third to fifth grade. Qualitative analysis of the results

found two different types of problems in the act of teaching. The first concerned the

child’s difficulty with conceptual knowledge, and the second had to do with the issues

that arose when instruction was not appropriate for the child’s level. “To work with the

zone of proximal development in classroom teaching implies that the teacher is aware of

the developmental stages of the children and is able to plan for qualitative changes in the

teaching toward a certain goal” (Hedegaard, 1990, p. 367). When the problems in

teaching arose, the teachers were presented with a deeper understanding of their

individual zone of proximal development for the task. Their interactions with the student

either allowed the student to work through the difficulty with the guidance of the teacher

and remain within the zone of proximal development, or become frustrated in attempting

to complete a task that was beyond the student’s ability level.

Another set of principles that are a part of Vygotsky’s concept of the zone of

proximal development are the ways in which teachers assist students’ performance

through the zone. Teachers interact with students in order to help them be successful at

the task. This has been termed “scaffolding” in the research literature (Bliss & Askew,

1996; Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). Scaffolding describes the process teachers go

through to gradually release the learning to the student. In a study of the uses of

scaffolding in teaching, Bliss and Askew found that teachers either did not use

scaffolding at all or did not use it effectively in their teaching interactions. One of the

reasons they identified for this lack of scaffolding usage related to the pedagogical

knowledge of the teachers. Alongside deep knowledge of students’ development and

extensive subject matter knowledge, understanding of how scaffolds work pedagogically is essential to being able to use them effectively and appropriately in teaching.

Gallimore and Tharp (1990) identified six means of assisting performance:

modeling, contingency, managing, feeding back, instructing, questioning, and cognitive

structuring. Using these means, teachers move their students through the zone of

proximal development in unique ways. As the authors state, “Responsiveness to

individual children’s zones of proximal development requires individualization according

to the exigencies of the moment and movement through the ZPD” (p. 183). One of the

chief principles of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development is that learning does not

occur in isolation or in simple collaboration with another person. Movement through the

zone occurs within the larger context of which the instruction is a part, and consideration

of this context is vital to an understanding of students’ performances.

Gallimore and Tharp (1990) also identify four stages of progression through the zone of proximal development. In stage one, performance is assisted by more capable others, such as parents, teachers, experts, peers, or coaches. In stage two, performance is assisted by the self. The performance is not fully internalized, but assistance from another person is no longer necessary. Children in this stage are often seen initiating self- directed speech, in which they talk to themselves as they complete a task. In stage three,

the process is internalized and the child is able to perform independently. Stage four illustrates the recursive process of the zone; for instance, when the child encounters a point of difficulty in reading, the process begins again. Interaction between teachers and students is critical during stage one of the progression through the zone. If the interactions are not predicated on knowledge of students’ developmental processes and of how to expertly assist performance, then progression through the zone will be hindered.

Appropriately structured teacher-student interactions make movement to stage two possible and probable.

In stage three of Gallimore and Tharp’s (1990) model of progression through the zone of proximal development, the student is said to have internalized the process being learned. Internalization is an important aspect of the scaffolding process that has been discussed in the literature on scaffolding. “Vygotsky conceptualized development as the transformation of socially shared activities into internalized processes” (John-Steiner &

Mahn, 1996, p. 192). In short, internalization is a process by which students take on socially oriented processes, adapting them for their own purposes. Learning within a social context allows for guided participation (Rogoff, 1995) from adults, a process by which children learn from observing and participating in adult activities. Scaffolding provides a vehicle for children and adults to use language to work through difficulty to internalize socially oriented processes. Internalization occurs once students have been able to apply these processes to their own purposes. An aspect of internalization is appropriation, in which students acquire tools, such as language, which are “the means that are internalized to aid future independent problem-solving activity” (Palinscar, 1998, p. 353). Vygotsky’s conception of internalization assists in the understanding of the

construction of internal functioning and its connection to the external (Carelli, 1998).

Language is a semiotic tool used by children and adults to guide children’s participation through new processes. According to John-Steiner and Mahn (1996), “The concept of semiotic mediation is essential to the socicultural view that the process of internalization is transformative rather than transmissive” (p. 194). An understanding of internalization as a process of co-constructing new knowledge that occurs through appropriation of socially mediated tools informs the study of teacher-student interactions, particularly those at the students’ point of difficulties.

Rodgers (2005) conducted a case study of two expert teachers and two of their students to characterize the nature of the scaffolding that was provided by the teachers to assist children who are struggling with reading. In her study, Rodgers notes that “we know very little about the nature of scaffolding in one-to-one tutoring settings” (p. 506).

Rodgers found through her analysis of transcripts from the one-to-one tutoring sessions that key features of effective literacy tutoring include providing opportunities for errors and modulating support. Rodgers’ study affirms the notion that “scaffolding learning is complex and challenging” (p. 527). Teachers have to decide what errors to attend to, what type of help to provide, and how to structure tasks to provide the right level of difficulty. The ways in which teachers provide help to students during one-to-one tutoring are based on students’ responses to tasks, and the help provided has implications for student progress. In this way, Rodgers’ study illuminates the critical and complex nature of the teacher-student interactions at the point of difficulty during one-to-one tutoring. Scaffolding is not simply providing help; rather, scaffolding is providing the right amount of help at the right time.

In an effort to further describe the critical aspects of teacher-student interactions

within the zone of proximal development, Scrismer and Tudge (2003) describe some

implications of Vygotsky’s theory that they consider “revolutionary” in terms of

describing the teaching/learning relationship. “Taking Vygotsky’s theory seriously

means that we learn from children while teaching them, as well as having children teach

teachers while learning” (p. 294). The authors point out that the Russian term

“obuchenie” has been translated to mean both teaching and learning, rather than one or

the other as some translations have been published. Teaching and learning, then, are

processes that are inextricably linked in sociocultural theory. Teachers and children

collaborate to work through the zone and assist the student in internalizing new concepts,

rather than teachers transmitting knowledge to the students. This theory reasserts what

was stated previously, that instruction creates the zone of proximal development,

meaning that teaching and learning is responsive to the child. Referencing teachers who

work with students identified as struggling with academic content, the authors state,

“Rather than treating the children as only having deficits that needed to be overcome,

learning about children would have helped teachers build on their strengths” (p. 303).

The points regarding Vygotsky’s theory discussed by Scrismer and Tudge help to build the case for the study of identity within the context of sociocultural theory.

When Vygotsky wrote that learning is a social process before it is an individual

function, he did not mean that development is brought about by the world outside

the individual. Instead, he meant that the individual is a necessary part of that

social world, and is helped to develop by a dynamic combination of his or her

own motivations, interests, prior skills or knowledge in conjunction with those of

other people. (Scrismer & Tudge, 2003, p. 296).

Learning in the zone of proximal development is not only a process of working in

collaboration with a more knowledgeable other to be successful, it is also a process of

experimenting with various identities. Although a key tenet of sociocultural theory is that

“through others, we become ourselves” (Vygotsky 1930/1978, p. 30), no studies have

linked students’ processes of identity development with the teacher-student interactions

that occur to assist performance within the zone of proximal development. Identity, as it

has been conceptualized in this study, is dependent upon context, as it is influenced and changed by the people and events with which we come into contact (Leander & Sheehy,

2004). This study has as a goal to link processes of identity with instructional interactions within one particular context involving a teacher and a student who is struggling with reading, thereby attempting to address the paucity of the research discussed above.

Summary

In this section, research related to teacher-student interactions was reviewed.

First, research related to psychological approaches to teacher-student interactions was reviewed. Second, research related to socicultural approaches to teacher-student interactions was reviewed. This research informed this study’s data analysis of the teacher-student interactions during one-to-one tutoring.

Summary

This is a study of the influence of reading instruction on the literate identities of students in grades three through seven. It specifically focuses on students who participated in a one-to-one tutoring program associated with a Midwestern university’s literacy master’s program. The tutoring program is part of a two semester university course, during which teachers meet twice a week for the first semester, followed by a semester of tutoring a student struggling with reading. A qualitative approach was used to describe the interactions between the teachers and the students. As documented in the review of the literature, there is a need to more closely examine the identity formation of students identified as struggling readers in order to better understand the best ways to help them improve. There has been a wealth of research in the areas of assessment and intervention of struggling readers, but the influence these processes have on the identities of students identified as struggling readers needs to be more fully understood. This study has the potential to inform the field about effective strategies for instructing and interacting with struggling readers to assist them in forming positive literate identities.

The research questions addressed were:

1. What is the perspective of the teacher on the assessment, evaluation, and

instruction of struggling readers? How does this perspective influence the

interactions between teacher and student in the tutoring situation?

2. What is the nature of the interactions between teachers and students participating

in a one-to-one tutoring program for struggling readers?

3. How do the interactions between teacher and student influence the

shifting literate identities of students identified as struggling readers?

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This chapter is divided up into five sections. In the first section, the research

methods are discussed. The second section sets the context for the study, providing a

rationale for the selection of the site and participants, and discussing issues of access and

selection. In the third section, I discuss the collection of the data, including data

collection procedures and the role of the researcher. Data analysis procedures are

discussed in the fourth section. Finally, the fifth section of this chapter discusses issues

related to the ethics of the study, specifically trustworthiness and transferability.

Research Methods

A collective study approach was used to implement the methods for the study. In

a collective case study approach, the researcher selects a group of cases to study to better

understand the research questions within an even larger group of cases. “Case study is

not a methodological choice but a choice of what is to be studied” (Stake, 2000, p. 435).

Case study research is compatible with a constructivist research paradigm because of the emphasis on the lived experiences of the participants in constructing knowledge about the

cases. Case study research is also compatible with my research questions, which

necessitated a descriptive approach to understanding how students develop literate identities in response to reading instruction.

Four teachers and 4 students, working in dyads for 6 weeks to improve the

students’ reading skills, were chosen as cases for this study. Specific procedures of selection will be discussed in a later section of this chapter. The teachers and students

were composed of teachers from the master’s degree and reading endorsement programs

at a Midwestern university, and struggling readers in Grades 3 to 7. Interviews,

observations, and document analysis were used to study the four teacher and student

dyads as they worked to improve the student’s reading skills over a 12-week time period.

Context of the Study

The research site for this study involved a classroom at the university where I

taught, as well as three off-campus locations where teachers chose to tutor their students.

These three locations included libraries and a church community center. The context for

this study was a master’s level course in assessment and evaluation of reading

difficulties, which is part of a master’s degree program in literacy. I was the instructor

for this course. This section will describe the research sites, justify the choice of the

context in which the study was conducted, including the course in which it was couched,

as well as issues of access and selection.

Choice of Research Site

The university where I taught the class that was the focus of this study is located in a Midwestern city, and enrolls approximately 10,000 students. The course,

“Assessment and Evaluation of Reading Difficulties,” enrolls approximately 30 students annually. The majority of the students are practicing teachers earning master’s degrees in literacy. In addition to the master’s degree, the majority of the teachers are pursuing reading endorsements to their teaching licenses or certificates. The course is the reading practicum for these students, and involves a two-semester commitment. Teachers typically take the practicum midway to late in their programs, after they have had several foundational courses in literacy. During the first semester, the class met twice a week for

6 weeks in a university classroom. In addition, teachers were asked to meet with their students once a week for an hour to administer assessments during this first semester.

The second semester of the practicum required the teachers to tutor a student who

was struggling with reading. Teachers were required to meet with their students twice a

week for 4 ½ weeks. Four of the 24 teachers were asked to be participants in this portion

of the study; they were observed during their tutoring sessions, and interviewed twice.

Additionally, the 4 participants followed the students when they returned to school in the

fall into their new classrooms, at the same school in which the teacher taught. The four

participants observed and interviewed the students 3 weeks after the start of the school

year, and discussed the students’ progress with their current teachers. This task was

optional for non-participants. Table 3.1 below summarizes the tasks that were required

as a part of the course and the tasks that were additional for the study.

Tasks Required Additional One-to-one tutoring of a X student Teacher-student interviews X (pre and post tutoring) Teacher-student interviews X (fall) Observations of students X (fall) Teacher-teacher interviews X (fall) Teacher-researcher X interviews (pre and post tutoring) Researcher observation of X tutoring sessions Collection of student work X samples from tutoring Obtaining parental consent X Lesson plans, Teaching- X Learning instrument transcripts, and reflections Class assignments X Class discussions (face-to- X face and on-line)

Table 3.1: Required and additional tasks asked of the teacher participants.

The 4 teachers chose to tutor their students in three different sites. Two of the teachers paired up and met at the same times in the same location. These 2 teachers met in the parish center that is connected to the Catholic elementary school in which they taught. Written permission was secured from the principal of the school to use the center for this study. The other 2 teachers met in different public libraries on different days.

Verbal assent was received from the library staff of these two libraries to meet and videotape in those locations. Formal written approval was not necessary since the libraries were public locations.

Choice of the Research Context

For several years, I have worked with teachers pursuing master’s degrees in literacy through a course titled “Assessment and Evaluation of Reading Difficulties.”

This course involves a two-semester commitment. During the first semester, participants meet weekly (twice a week during the summer session, during which this study was conducted) for class, and during the second semester, they work one-to-one with a struggling reader. The first semester of the course focuses on learning about assessments and intervention strategies that are helpful when working with students who struggle with reading. Course assignments, discussions, and readings are intended to introduce students to various assessment tools and ways of working with struggling readers. In the second portion of the course, students are expected to employ what they have learned when working with a struggling reader, typically in a one-to-one situation.

This course was an appropriate context to address the research questions because of the intensive nature of the teaching and learning that took place. Teachers were asked to not only identify a student who was struggling with reading, but also to justify how and why they selected this student. By talking with the teachers about this process, I was able to examine the perspective the teachers took on struggling readers, which assisted in understanding the interactions between teacher and student. In addition, teachers were expected to follow through with this student by working one-to-one for 6 weeks, enabling me to focus on the interactions between teacher and student.

This was also an appropriate context in which to observe the students’ processes

of identity development, again due to the intensive nature of the course. By working with

students twice a week during the summer, when they were away from the distractions and

responsibilities of the regular school year, teachers had the opportunity to get to know who the students were as readers at a deeper level, and therefore judge the impact of the

instruction on the students’ identity development.

The study began during the first semester of the course as teachers assessed and

got to know their students as readers. The first semester of the course coincided with the

end of the students’ school year, May-June 2006. Data collected during this time period

included class assignments, class discussions, and student interviews. The study

continued into the second semester tutoring program, which took place from June to

August 2006, when the majority of the data collection took place. Data collected during

this time period included observations, teacher interviews, student interviews, student

work, and threaded discussion transcripts. The study was completed in the fall of 2006

when students returned to school. Data collected during this time period included

teachers’ interviews and observations of students. Teachers conducted these interviews and observations 3 to 5 weeks after the school year began to allow time for the students to settle into a new school year. Teachers interviewed the students once and observed them on one occasion for 30 minutes in their language arts classrooms. Teachers also interviewed the child’s current teacher about how the student was doing in reading.

Interviews and observations were audio and video taped. My data collection schedule is summarized in Table 3.2.

Time Period Event May 2006 Formally present research study details to teachers Course officially begins May 15-June 21, Collect documents for analysis: 2006 Class assignments Weekly reflections Transcripts of class discussions Analyze data June 26-August 8, Select a purposive sample of teachers and students to 2006 observe and interview Conduct observations and interviews of teachers Collect transcripts of threaded discussions Analyze data September 2006 Teachers follow students into classrooms for observation and interviews Collect data from teachers Analyze data

Table 3.2: Data collection schedule.

As part of the requirements for successful completion of the course, teachers

employed the Literacy Lesson Framework (Tancock, 1994) as a structure for their

tutoring sessions. In addition, since the focus of the course is on the teacher’s learning

process as much as it is on the student’s learning process, teachers utilize the Teaching

Learning Instrument (Rosemary et al., 2002; Kinnucan-Welsch, Rosemary, & Grogan,

2006) as a way to interpret their interactions with their students. These tools were used to

address the second research question, which related to the perspective of the teacher on the assessment, evaluation, and instruction of struggling readers. Through the anecdotal notes and reflections that were a part of these tools, the teachers shared their thoughts on the process of instructing a struggling reader. Both of these tools will be discussed in detail in a later section of this chapter.

Gaining Entrance

In October 2005, I spoke with the chair of the Department of Teacher Education

about the possibility of using the course as a venue for my study. She agreed to allow me

access to use the course, particularly as she was interested in examining how the course was currently operating to determine if any changes needed to be made for the future. In

February 2006, I spoke with her again and confirmed her support. As the instructor for the course, I had access to the participants, who were asked to sign consent forms indicating their desire to participate in the study. Any of the students in the class were able to choose to not participate in the study at any time, without any penalty to their grade or standing in the class.

By virtue of the enrollment in the course, the teachers in the class had some level

of interest in working with struggling readers. Therefore, when I explained the research

study to the class, all but two of them agreed that they would be willing to participate in the study if asked, understanding that there were criteria for selection. The two teachers who declined participation offered explanations related to scheduling conflicts or unwillingness on the part of the student or student’s parents with whom they would be working. Twenty-two teachers in the class were willing to participate in the study and were interested in furthering their own and the field’s knowledge about struggling readers. Of these 22 willing participants, I selected 4 teachers to participate in the study based on the grade level of their students, accessibility of their tutoring schedule and location, and the willingness of the students they worked with to participate. An effort was also made to select teachers who tutored their students in the same location, so that multiple tutoring sessions were able to be observed at once. Due to the timing of the

course, I was not able to get to know the students prior to selection to select them based on their individual characteristics such as identity, reading level, or reading preferences.

I got to know the teachers well prior to selection during the class sessions, and thus based my decisions on what I knew about the teachers and what they shared with me about their students in terms of grade level, willingness, and scheduling plans.

Participants

The participants for this study included 4 teachers enrolled in the literacy master’s degree and reading endorsement programs at a Midwestern university. The participants also included 4 students who were tutored by the teachers who participated in the study.

Participants were asked to sign consent forms, indicating their agreement to participate in the study. Parents of the student participants were also asked to sign consent forms.

Participation did not impact the grade the teachers received for the course. Pseudonyms are used to identify the teachers and the students throughout this study.

Teacher Participants

The teachers enrolled in this course were required to work with the students for a minimum of 36 hours, including planning and preparation. Assessment data were collected by the teachers during the first semester of the course, and those hours counted towards the total required for the second semester. In addition, part of the requirements for the tutoring includes the completion of the Teaching Learning Instrument, a reflective teaching tool that will be discussed in detail in a later section of this chapter. The use of

this tool requires transcription, coding, and analysis of three lessons on the part of the

teacher. See Table 3.3 for a detailed description of the allotment of the 36 hour

requirement.

Activity Total Time Administering and scoring assessments 5 hours (1 hour per week) Tutoring student 18 hours (2 hours, 2 times a week for 4 1/2 weeks) Planning and Reflection 7 hours (approx. 1 hour per lesson) Teaching-Learning Instrument 6 hours (2 hours per iteration) (transcription, coding, and reflection) TOTAL: 36 hours

Table 3.3: Assessment and intervention time allocation.

In addition to the time they already agreed to as part of enrollment in the course,

the 4 teacher participants were asked to commit additional time as part of the study.

These 4 participants were asked to follow their students’ progress 3 to 5 weeks after school resumed in the fall, through one interview and one observation. Participants were asked to arrange their tutoring schedule in consultation with the researcher and to participate in two sets of interviews, once prior to the start of tutoring and once when it was completed. Informal conversations also occurred as part of the tutoring sessions to understand actions on the part of the teacher or student. The 4 teacher participants were

given a collection of children’s literature for their classrooms.

The teachers who participated in this study included 1 male and 3 females. The

male, Jack, was the only male enrolled in the course. The remaining 23 students were

female. The teachers had a maximum of 4 years of teaching experience (Jenny, Jack, 82

Annie) and a minimum of 2 years of teaching experience (Nora). The school districts

that they taught in included one suburban Catholic school (Jenny and Annie), one

suburban public elementary school (Jack), and one rural public middle school (Nora).

Nora was at the beginning stages of her master’s program, this course being the second

course she had taken in the program; while the other three (Jenny, Annie, and Jack) were

at the ending stages of their program, nearing graduation. The individual teachers will be

discussed in detail in chapter 4.

Student Participants

Participants also included students tutored by the 4 teacher participants. Students

were purposefully selected by their teachers based on assessment data that showed a

weakness in the area of reading. I selected the teacher and student dyads based on the

students’ willingness to work with the teacher who selected them, their grade level,

ability of the teachers to have access to the students in the fall of 2006, and their willingness to participate in the study, indicated by signing the consent form. An attempt was made to select students in the intermediate or middle grades, as this is a primary area

of interest to me. One of the students was entering Grade 7, 2 were entering Grade 4, and

one was entering Grade 3. Students participated in interviews and observations

throughout the study. Student participants were asked to participate in an interview and

observations with the teachers 3 to 5 weeks into the 2006-2007 school year, in addition to

their participation in the tutoring sessions in the summer. Parental permission was

secured before beginning to work with any of the students, and any student who did not

wish to participate was not asked to participate in interviews or observations. All 4 of

the students invited to participate in the study agreed and parental consent was provided.

The student participants each received several children’s books in appreciation for their

participation in the study. Each student participant will be described in detail in chapter

Data Collection

All data were stored on my computer, protected by passwords. Data were stored

on my computer during data collection, analysis, and the writing of the dissertation.

Following the completion of the study, the data will be password protected on my

computer. The research questions addressed were:

1. What is the perspective of the teacher on the assessment, evaluation, and

instruction of struggling readers? How is this perspective reflected in the

interactions between teacher and student in the tutoring situation?

2. What is the nature of the interactions between teachers and students participating

in a one-to-one tutoring program for struggling readers?

3. How do the interactions between teacher and student influence the shifting

literate identities of students identified as struggling readers?

See Table 3.4 for a summary of the data collected to answer the research questions.

I used two different tools to collect data from the teacher participants. These

tools, the Literacy Lesson Framework and the Teaching Learning Instrument, will be described in detail below. These tools were not used as instruments of data collection;

rather they were taught to the teachers as part of the university course as tools to be used

in their lesson planning and reflection. The validity and reliability of these tools has not

yet been evaluated in empirical studies.

Research Question Data Needed 1. What is the perspective of the • Pre and post teacher teacher on the assessment, evaluation, and interviews instruction of struggling readers? How does • Class assignments this perspective influence the interactions • Observation between teacher and student in the tutoring • Literacy Lesson situation? Framework • Teaching Learning Instrument 2. What is the nature of the • Observation of tutoring interactions between teachers and students sessions participating in a one-to-one tutoring • Work samples program for struggling readers?

3. How do the interactions between • Observation of tutoring teacher and student influence the shifting sessions literate identities of students identified as • Work samples struggling readers? • Student journal • Interest inventories • Pre and post interviews between teacher and student • Fall interviews between teacher and student • Fall observations by teacher • Fall interviews with new teacher

Table 3.4: Types of data collected for each research question.

Literacy Lesson Framework

The Literacy Lesson Framework is, “a structure to assist preservice teachers in developing appropriate instructional activities for students” (Tancock, 1994, p. 132). The framework was used by each of the teachers in the course as a structure for each of the tutoring sessions. I relied on this framework to assess the teachers’ instructional decisions through the anecdotal notes and reflections they wrote during and following the lesson. Although developed for preservice teachers, the framework works equally well with any teacher as a basis for lesson planning. The Literacy Lesson Framework was developed based on the framework followed in Reading Recovery, a reading intervention program for young children (Clay, 1994). Beginning with a familiar reading portion, in which the student reads aloud from material at his instructional level, the framework provides a variety of literacy experiences (see Table 1). Following the familiar reading component, time is devoted to guided reading. The guided reading format is based on the work of Fountas and Pinnell (1996), who state, “It is through guided reading…that teachers can show children how to read and support children as they read” (p. 1). This is typically the lengthiest portion of the lesson, as the teacher then is able to focus on many different aspects of comprehension and word recognition. During guided reading, the teacher chooses a book at the student’s instructional level for the student to read aloud, implements strategies to guide the reading before, during, and after the reading of the text, and becomes involved as the student reads the story aloud, assisting at points of difficulty. Completed prior to the work of Fountas and Pinnell (1996), the guided reading portion of the framework is based on principles based on Clay’s (1985) work. Fountas and Pinnell (1996) emphasize the role of silent reading within guided reading, and Clay

(1985) emphasized the importance of teachers’ use of prompts to direct use of the

graphophonic, semantic, and syntactic cueing systems as students read. Tancock (1994)

indicates that the use of oral reading during this portion of the lesson is recommended to focus on teaching the child strategies to correct miscues. She states that the goal of the guided reading portion of the lesson is for the child to read “the selected text as independently as possible, with the teacher teaching, guiding, and supporting along the way” (p. 136). The teachers were told during the class meetings that they may rely on either silent or oral reading, or a balance of the two, during this portion of the lesson, based on the needs of their students. All 4 of the teacher participants in this study chose to ask students to read the texts orally.

The lesson then moves into writing activities and word work, which may or may not be related to the text read during guided reading. During word work, the teacher typically engages the student in structural analysis activities, such as word sorting or word study games that task the student with looking closely at how words are put together. The lesson ends with a read aloud, during which the teacher chooses a book to read aloud to the student, in order to model fluency and to expose the student to quality literature. The read aloud portion also allows the teacher and student to share in a pleasurable reading experience, which may be motivating to the student. The Literacy

Lesson Framework was used by all of the teachers in this study in their tutoring sessions.

The teachers planned the activities to occur during each portion of the framework based on the goals they had for their students, but the structure of each of their sessions was

consistent and constant across all 4 teachers. See Figure 3.1 for a summary of the

Literacy Lesson Framework’s components. Also see Appendix G for the template used by the teachers to plan their lessons.

Literacy Lesson Framework (Tancock, 1994, p.132)

1. Familiar reading (fluency)-approximately 5 minutes 2. Guided reading-approximately 30 minutes a. Before-reading activity (generating prereading questions, introducing the book, or making predictions) b. During-reading activity (teaching for strategy use, Directed Reading-Thinking Activity) c. Postreading activity (answering prereading questions; evaluating predictions; or clarifying, extending, or refining thinking about the story) 3. Writing (shared writing and cur-up sentences, process writing) – approximately 15 minutes 4. Word sorting-approximately 5 minutes 5. Book sharing-approximately 5 minutes

Figure 3.1: The Literacy Lesson Framework.

Teaching-Learning Instrument

The Teaching-Learning Instrument (Rosemary et al., 2002; Kinnucan-Welsch,

Rosemary, & Grogan, 2006) is a reflective teaching tool the teachers were asked to use for three of their lessons. The Teaching-Learning Instrument is “a transcript analysis professional development tool...designed to assist teachers in self-evaluating their practice to improve reading instruction” (Rosemary et al., 2002, p. 370). A research- based instructional strategy was chosen by each of the teachers, based on the students’ areas of need, to be implemented in all three lessons. For example, the teacher may have 88

chosen to use Anticipation Guides as a way to assist the student in previewing and

thinking about the text. The teachers were asked to audiotape three lessons of their

choice in which they implemented the chosen strategy, and to transcribe a 15-minute

portion from each of these lessons. After transcription was complete, the teachers coded

their own talk for scaffolding and protocol codes (see Figure 3.2). “To engage teachers

in reflection and self-examination of their instruction, the TLI draws teachers’ attention to both protocol features and scaffolding features that are more or less present in instructional talk” (p. 371). Following their first use of the tool, the teachers and I consulted about their transcript, discussing plans for subsequent lessons and reasons for

those decisions. In these conferences, I offered assistance on areas that seemed weak

instructionally, but primarily served as second check on the coding, allowing the teacher

to ask any pertinent questions and providing guidance in decision making. The teachers

then completed an extensive reflection on the lesson itself, the transcription, and the

coding, incorporating information about their decisions for the upcoming lessons, as well

as comments on student performance. The focus of the Teaching-Learning Instrument is

on the teacher, but this intense focus on instructional decisions regarding one student allowed the teachers in this study to also look carefully at student performance in relation to their own.

The codes in Figure 3.2 were used by the teachers to code their own talk related to

scaffolding and lesson protocol features. The scaffolding codes were developed for use

in the TLI based on sociocultural theories of learning that emphasize the teacher’s role in implementing “skillfully employed teaching actions” (Rosemary et al., 2002, p. 370) to move a child towards independent performance. The lesson protocol codes were based

on “decades of research on teaching strategies shown to be effective in boosting literacy development” (p. 370). Salient features of literacy lessons were explicated to create the literacy codes. I did not use the codes in my own process of coding the data. The teachers relied on the codes to assist them in analyzing their own talk. The codes represent, as stated previously, features that are often present in instructional talk, and therefore the process of coding the data enabled the teachers to see the proportion in which they used the various codes. This analysis then informed their written reflections, which I used as data to provide insight into the teachers’ decision-making processes throughout the tutoring sessions. In the written reflections, the teachers were asked to address their own performance relative to the codes, as well as the student’s performance and what they planned to do next. From these reflections, I was able to gather data concerning the teacher’s evaluations of the student’s progress and the reasons why they chose to implement the strategies they did in their lessons. See Appendix H for a description of the protocol and scaffolding codes used by the teachers when coding their lesson transcripts.

Protocol Scaffolding P1 Focus Attention JPS Joint Problem Solving P2 Explain Task IS Intersubjectivity P3 Model Task WR Warmth and Responsiveness P4 Assist Performance ZPD Zone of Proximal Development P5 Provide Practice SR Promoting Self Regulation P6 Monitor Independent Performance

Figure 3.2: Codes used in the Teaching-Learning Instrument.

In addition to the documents that resulted from the use of these tools, I also

collected data from class assignments, class discussions, observations, interviews, and

student work samples. Each of these types of data will be discussed in detail below.

University Class Assignments

Class assignments, including weekly written reflections and the final exam, were collected as data from the 4 teacher participants. The purpose of collecting class assignments as data was because “‘What people say’ is often very different from ‘what people do’” (Hodder, 2000, p. 705). Class assignments are an application of course concepts, and can therefore reveal more about what the teachers think about struggling readers than interviews and discussions alone. Ascertaining teachers’ thoughts about the assessment, evaluation, and instruction of struggling readers helped me to answer the second research question. In addition, collecting these data assisted me in understanding the observed interactions between teachers and students during the tutoring sessions, which directly applied to my third and fourth research questions.

Weekly reflections were turned in by all of the students and focused on their reactions to the readings and class discussions for the week. Reflections were one or two pages in length and may include questions, connections, or clarification of any of the course readings and/or discussions from the previous week. Reflections were designed to serve as a monitor of completion of the readings, as well as an opportunity for all students to participate in the class. Reflections were a tool for on-going analysis of teachers’ perspectives on the identity development of struggling readers, which also informed my second research question.

As part of the 36 hours, teachers were required to complete three rounds of the

Teaching Learning Instrument, a tool designed to assist teachers in examining their own teaching, as well as the learning of the student(s) (see the discussion earlier in this chapter). The transcriptions and written reflections were analyzed as data because of the in-depth nature of the process and its potential to further assist in answering the research questions.

University Class Discussions

Teachers participated in an on-line threaded discussion as part of their enrollment in the course. The threaded discussion occurred during the second semester of the course when the class did not meet on a regular basis. The written, on-line responses of the 4 teachers who participated in this study were also analyzed relative to the research questions. The responses of the remaining 20 students in the class were not analyzed.

The threaded discussion was designed to allow the teachers a chance to discuss their tutoring with their peers. Questions were posed by the instructor to stimulate conversation about the tutoring sessions. These discussions informed question one regarding the views of the teachers on the assessment, evaluation, and instruction of struggling readers.

Select in-class discussions were recorded and transcribed from the university class, as well. Discussions were selected for recording when they took place in small groups and involved at least one of the 4 teacher participants. Any other teachers that were heard on the tape gave verbal consent before the taping. Specifically, the discussions that were recorded focused on teachers’ plans for the intervention sessions, in

terms of areas of student need and effective instructional strategies to address these areas.

These teacher discussions within the university class informed question two, the views of

the teachers on the assessment, evaluation, and instruction of struggling readers.

The discussions revealed teachers’ thoughts about struggling readers with their

peers. They also provided a different venue for the teachers to express their thoughts and

opinions than the written assignments, and therefore further insight into their perspectives

on struggling readers (question two), which aided the researcher in understanding the

interactions between the teachers and the students (questions three and four). Since the

selection of the teacher participants was dependent on their selection of the student he or

she planned to tutor, I was not able to determine the 4 teacher participants until they had

been able to secure parental permission and arrange schedules for tutoring. Therefore, I

began recording discussions toward the end of the scheduled class meetings, rather than

from the beginning. The discussions I was able to record directly related to the teachers’

plans for tutoring over the summer.

Observations of Tutoring Sessions

Observations of the tutoring sessions involving the four dyads were conducted.

Teachers were required to work on their case study for a total of 36 hours. This includes

planning and preparation, evaluation of assessment results, and actual one-to-one tutoring time (see Table 3.). The observations were conducted of the actual one-to-one tutoring time, as access to the planning and preparation and assessment results was given through

the course assignments and interviews. The observations were conducted to watch the

student as s/he played out his or her literate identities in interactions with the teacher,

which addressed questions one, three, and four. Data from the observations were used in

conjunction with the interview responses, to further understand how the tutoring sessions

were influencing the students’ literate identities, questions three and four.

Teachers met twice a week with their student at locations that were mutually

convenient to them. Two pairs of teachers and students, Annie and Maggie, and Jenny

and Ethan, met on the same two days each week, Monday and Wednesday, in the same

location, the parish center affiliated with the school in which they taught. Each of their sessions lasted 2 hours. I alternated which pair I actively observed each day, so that I

would be able to intensely observe one pair during each session. The pair that was not

being actively observed was video recorded so that I was able to view the session at a

later time. Two separate video recorders were set up in the room, with each recorder focusing on a different pair. I took detailed notes in my log book during the observation and when watching the videotapes later that day.

The two other pairs of teachers and students, Patrick and Jack, and Nora and

Matthew, met on different days in different locations. Patrick and Jack met at a public

library on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, for an hour to an hour and a half for each

session. Nora and Matthew met on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons for 2 hours per

session at a different public library. I actively observed and videotaped the sessions as

they occurred from both of these teachers, taking detailed notes in my log book.

Interviews of Teachers and Students

Two sets of semi-structured interviews were conducted with the teachers, one

prior to the start of the tutoring sessions, and the other at the completion of the tutoring

sessions. Semi-structured interviews follow a pre-set interview protocol, but also allow

for the exploration of additional questions related to the topic of inquiry (Fontana & Frey,

2000). Interviews focused on the teachers’ assessment and intervention processes and

their thoughts about student progress, which addressed question two. The purpose of all

of the interviews was to further understand how the teacher’s interactions with the

student were influencing the student’s identity development, which addressed questions

one, three, and four. Interview protocols (see Appendix A) were compiled from previous

studies of teachers’ perceptions of struggling readers (Johnston, Woodside-Jiron, & Day,

2000).

I did engage the teachers and students in informal, spontaneous conversations

about what occurred in specific lessons when it was appropriate or necessary to gain

further information. Conversations took no more than 5-10 minutes so as not to distract

from the lesson planned by the teacher, and typically occurred during a break in the

lesson or as we were exiting the tutoring location. On one occasion Nora did call me at

home to discuss a dilemma she was having with her student, and I took notes on this

phone conversation in my log book. I did not interrupt the flow of the lessons to initiate conversations with the teacher; rather, I waited for the teacher to initiate the conversations or for there to be a break or end to the lessons.

Interviews were also conducted with the students who were tutored by the

teachers. These interviews occurred on three occasions, once prior to the start of the

tutoring, once at the end of the tutoring sessions, and once when the student had returned

to school in the fall. The interviews focused on understanding how the student saw him

or herself as a reader, and how that may have been influenced by the teaching that

occurred in the tutoring sessions, which addressed questions one, three, and four.

Interviews were conducted by the teachers as part of their assignments for the course.

They audio recorded all interviews and turned in the recordings to me for transcription

and analysis. The student interview questions were also compiled from existing research

literature on student identity development (Hogsten & Peregoy, 1999; Johnston,

Woodside-Jiron, & Day, 2000; Sutherland, 2005). Additional interview questions were

generated by the teachers, based on information they wanted to learn about their students.

Student Work Samples

As part of the tutoring sessions, students were asked to complete a journal related

to their development as readers. Teachers guided students in the completion of this journal, providing prompts when necessary or appropriate. The students were asked to respond to the question, “How are you feeling about reading today?” This journal, along with samples of student work collected during the tutoring sessions, was submitted as data for the study. This journal primarily informed question one, regarding the identity development of the student throughout the study.

Role of the Researcher

Careful consideration of my role in the study addressed one of the measures for quality in case study research (Barone, 2004; Green & Stinson, 1999). As the instructor for the course that was the context for this study, the use of interviews, observations, and document analysis to study the cases allowed me to step outside my role as instructor in the hopes of better understanding what the interactions between the teachers and students meant for the students’ identity development. This was in line with Schwandt’s (2000)

statement, “So as not to misinterpret the original meaning, interpreters must employ some

kind of method that allows them to step outside their historical frames of reference”

(p.193).

I acted on a continuum from observer participant to participant observer

(Angrosino & Mays de Perez, 2000; Merriam, 1998) during the observations. “Being a participant observer means that “the researcher’s observer activities…are known to the group, are subordinate to the researcher’s role as participant” (Merriam, 1998, p. 101).

Being an observer participant means that the observations take priority over the participation in the group. As the instructor for the course, part of my role was to coach the teachers as they worked with their students. Therefore, as questions arose or problems emerged, I interacted with the teachers and students to assist them in moving forward. However, since these 4 teachers were the only teachers in the class I observed working with students, I did not offer unsolicited advice or suggestions on how to improve instruction. When questions were asked of me, I answered them, just as I did when other students called or emailed me with their own questions about their instruction. In addition, informal conversations about events during the lesson took place with both the teachers and the students to better understand what was taking place and how it related to the research questions. Although I did not observe any of the other teachers in the class during any of their tutoring sessions due to the time demands of observing the 4 participants during each of their sessions, observations of select tutoring sessions would have been conducted even if this research study were not occurring.

Thus, the use of observation is proportional to the context.

Data Analysis

I analyzed the interviews, observations, and documents as they were collected.

The goal of the data analysis was to develop relationships among the ways in which teachers and students interact in a one-to-one tutoring situation and the identity development of these students. I also analyzed the data using the method of cross case analysis. I compared the themes that occurred within the individual cases with one another to draw conclusions about the development of identity in struggling readers.

My analysis of the data involved multiple passes through the data set to confirm, reject, and extend previous understandings. During the first semester of the course, class assignments were analyzed using document analysis, in which I coded the documents for emerging themes and patterns. Threaded discussions were printed and analyzed in the same manner. Relevant class discussions were recorded, with the permission of class participants, and transcribed. Transcripts of class discussions were coded for the themes and patterns, using the same categories as the document analysis, plus any new ones that

I identified. I also maintained a log book, recording thoughts, observations, and anecdotal notes throughout the study. This log book was considered data and coded for themes found in previous data sets. This log book was analyzed in part to help to account for my influence on the data as the researcher, and the instructor of the course. According to Fontana and Frey (2000), accounting for the influence of the researcher on the data can be “very valuable, as [it] make[s] the readers aware of the complex and cumbersome nature of interviewing people in their natural settings and lend[s] a tone of realism and

veracity to studies” (p. 661). Class assignments, class discussions, and the log book

were also analyzed at the end of the study, in conjunction with analysis of the

observations, interviews, and student work samples.

When observing the tutoring sessions, I initially used a descriptive observation

approach, in which I observed everything going on in the tutoring session. As data were

collected and themes began to emerge, I focused the observations. I looked for evidence

to support initial analyses from previously collected data (interviews, class assignments,

class discussions), as well as any new insights into the students’ identity formation.

At the completion of the tutoring sessions, it was important to me to progress

through the entire collection of tutoring sessions from all 4 teachers, in order to begin to

see what themes emerged across cases. I watched each teacher’s sessions back to back to

each other, rather than watching the sessions in chronological order according to

selection, allowing me to also see common themes that were unique to each case. I

transcribed portions of each tutoring session that included interactions between the

teacher and the student with several turns at talk for each of them and discussions that

seemed to inform my research questions, beginning some initial analysis and code

forming as I listened and watched the sessions again. I also took notes on the portions I did not initially transcribe, noting the time at which they occurred and key elements to the interactions. I did not transcribe interactions that seemed insignificant to the data analysis because they either did not include several turns at talk or involved discussions that did not appear pertinent to my research questions. See Appendix B for an example of a transcript in which I took notes on an interaction that I did not transcribe. By noting

the time at which the interaction occurred and taking notes on what occurred during the

interaction, I was able to easily locate the interactions if, during data analysis, I

determined that I needed to transcribe further interactions.

Through this process of transcription, I began the process of data reduction. In

determining which portions of the sessions to transcribe, I listened and watched for

interactions between the teacher and the student that included several turns at talk for

each participant, involved a discussion over some aspect of the reading or writing process

in which the student was engaged, and that were evidence of the categories of

interactions I already had identified in on-going analysis of the data. As an example of

the last criteria, one of the categories of interactions that I began to see during the

collection of the data was the use of questions to lead a student to the correct answer.

When I heard an interaction in which questions were used in this way, I transcribed that interaction. Interactions that were not transcribed were thus excluded from the data analysis.

Once I had reviewed all of the sessions, I transcribed all of the interviews that had

been done with teachers and students. These were transcribed in their entirety. I then

uploaded all of the completed transcriptions, of sessions and interviews, to the NUDIST

N6® qualitative data analysis software program (Richards & Richards, 2002), which I

used to assist me in coding the data. Prior to entering data into NUDIST N6® (Richards

& Richards, 2002), however, the coding and analyzing processes had already begun. I

furthered the coding process by beginning to look at the teachers’ sessions in comparison

to one another, coding the first session from each teacher, followed by the second

session, until I had transcribed all of the sessions. Since I had transcribed each teacher’s

100

sessions as a whole unit, I felt that it was important to now view them side by side, looking for similarities and dissimilarities across the sessions. By doing this, I was engaging in cross-case analysis of each dyad’s experiences.

Prior to beginning formal coding using NUDIST N6® (Richards & Richards,

2002), however, the first step was to determine the unit of analysis. In making this decision, I evaluated what my objective was to compare across texts. In this case, my objective was to compare the interactions between the teachers and the students across the tutoring sessions and across each dyad. Therefore, my unit of analysis became each interaction between teacher and student. In determining what represented an interaction,

I found that the teacher or student would verbally initiate an interaction, and the interaction would be followed through by the other participant verbally and nonverbally.

Boundaries for interactions were determined by teacher or student providing a verbal or nonverbal indicator that ended the interaction, or by initiating a new interaction as marked by a change in content. Interactions each included several turns at talk for both teacher and student, and typically centered on resolving questions, teaching points, or connections to the activity or text.

The coding process began with open coding, during which I identified categories in the data. I identified these categories by reading the data set multiple times and noting themes and patterns that related to my research questions that seemed to appear repeatedly in the data. I began with a general listing of categories that I identified in the data, and gradually formed them into an organized set of hierarchical categories, based on the relationship they had with each other. At the end of this process, I had several main categories of codes, under which there were sub-categories of each.

101

Through this process, I was able to see more clearly which portions of the lessons

included interaction points that would specifically inform my research questions. I chose to code all of the guided reading portions of the lessons, as these interactions tended to

include multiple interactions between the teacher and the student. I excluded the writing

portions of most of the lessons from coding, unless I saw that there was an interaction

that seemed particularly applicable to my research questions, in which case it was coded.

I also excluded the word work portions of the lesson, as they tended to include brief interactions focused on procedural issues. As with the writing, if I saw an interaction that seemed to inform my research questions, I coded just that interaction, not the entire portion of the lesson. I selectively coded the familiar reading and book sharing portions of the lesson framework, based on the quantity of the interactions that occurred during these portions within individual lessons.

Working with these main categories, I began to refine the sub-categories that were

included under each of these. I looked for similarities in the categories, combining

categories when necessary and sorting the categories by common characteristics. As I

wrote up my analysis of the data, further similarities in codes appeared, and the

categories were collapsed and refined into what exists in chapter 4. This was axial

coding, because the categories that emerged during open coding were collapsed into

larger categories based on similarities in the data. This was the method of analysis for

answering the first two research questions, and it resulted in detailed descriptions of the

students, and the teachers’ views on struggling readers, as well as two broad categories

102

and following subcategories of teacher-student interactions. It was also during this process that I went back to some of the interactions I had summarized and noted initially to transcribe them in their entirety.

Data Analysis for Research Question #1

The first research question stated:

1. What is the perspective of the teacher on the assessment, evaluation, and instruction of struggling readers? How is this perspective reflected in the interactions between teacher and student in the tutoring situation?

In describing the teachers’ views on struggling readers, data were placed into categories based on their relation to the teachers’ views of struggling readers through thematic coding of the data. Categories were based on data analysis and reviews of the literature. To analyze the data for the second part of this research question (How is this perspective reflected in the interactions between teacher and student in the tutoring situation?), I compared the results of the data analysis from part one of this question with the results of the data analysis for the second research question, which will be described in detail in the next section. By comparing the results concerning the teachers’ perspectives on the assessment, evaluation, and instruction of struggling readers with the types of interactions that occurred in their sessions, I was able to determine the ways in which the perspectives of the teachers were or were not reflected in the actual interactions with students.

103

Data Analysis for Research Question #2

The second research question stated:

What is the nature of the interactions between teachers and students participating in a

one-to-one tutoring program for struggling readers?

Informing question two, the two broad categories of interactions that were

identified through thematic coding of the data related to the teacher-student interactions were those that occurred at the point of difficulty and use of questions.

More specifically, two types of interactions that occurred at the point of difficulty

were scaffolding instruction and teaching the use of reading strategies. Three

subcategories found in the data under scaffolding instruction were rephrasing, modeling,

and explicit teaching. Within the explicit teaching category, three subcategories found

were noticing, explaining, and telling. Teaching the use of reading strategies also

included the subcategories of use of word solving strategies, use of context clues, use of

background knowledge, and rereading. These elements did not occur sequentially in the

data, nor did all of the categories appear within each teacher’s sessions. When analyzing

the data, these elements were those that appeared repeatedly in the data at the point of

difficulty, and were related to the broader category of interactions at the point of

difficulty.

The guided reading portions of each teacher’s lessons were analyzed for the types

of questions that occurred. Multiple passes through the data revealed that one of the ways

in which teachers initiated interactions was by asking questions, and that these questions

could be divided into categories based on their intent for use. I determined, after

thoroughly reviewing the data, that there was a greater variety of questioning interactions

104

that occurred in the guided reading portion of the lessons than at any of the other times, which made it appropriate to select this portion of the data for in-depth analysis. In addition, the interactions that occurred during the guided reading sessions involved a variety of literacy activities (word work, comprehension monitoring, and writing). The questions asked by the teachers during the guided reading portions of the lessons fell into the following main categories:

Leading questions were those that the teacher used to lead the student to the

answer he or she was looking for. Teachers had an answer in mind when asking these

questions, and posed the questions in hopes that the answer would become obvious to the

student.

Probing questions were used to access the students’ knowledge and understanding

about a topic and to elicit their thoughts in response to a question posed by the teacher.

There was no right or wrong answer to this type of question, but the answers students gave were used to inform further interactions.

Monitoring questions were used by the teachers to monitor a student’s understanding of words and concepts in the story. These questions were at the surface level of knowledge and had a right or wrong answer.

Extending questions helped to extend student responses beyond what was initially provided. Extending questions involved the use of “Why?” to ask the student to provide more details or to think more deeply about the response.

105

Clarifying questions were employed when a student’s response was not clear to the teacher. Teachers also used clarifying questions as a way to check their understanding of a student’s response, repeating the response back to the student in the question.

Restating questions were used when the student did not understand the question.

The teacher would either restate the question word for word, or rephrase the question so that it would make more sense to the student.

Connecting questions were used to assist the student in making a personal connection to the text to increase understanding. Teachers would elicit prior knowledge from the students or directly ask them to make a connection based on their personal experiences.

Assisting questions occurred at the point of difficulty and were used to assist the student in working through a problematic word or concept. These questions were designed to scaffold the student’s understanding of problem solving at difficulty, and there was a right or wrong answer.

Managing questions were those questions the teacher used to manage the flow of the lesson. The teacher would ask for the student’s approval regarding what they planned to do during the lesson, or would ask for input on who should read first, or what parts of activities they should do.

Although some may view questions as categorized based on their form, I have categorized them based on their function in the interaction. By categorizing the function of the teachers’ questions in the interactions, I was able to analyze the role of the student

106

in determining that function through the responses given. The categories of scaffolding instruction and types of questions were used to respond to question two. The results of this analysis will be discussed in chapter 4.

Data Analysis for Research Question #3

To analyze the data for the last research question, How do the interactions

between the teacher and the student influence students’ shifting literate identities?, my data analysis had to go one step further. Identity is a changing and elusive concept, not one that can be nailed down to a single state of being by solely coding emerging themes and patterns across the data. The third research question for this study did not focus on what the data meant, but on what identities the data built for these students. In order to see how the interactions worked to build students’ identities, I analyzed the data using microanalysis of a single session from each of the dyad’s sessions. Based on the general categories from open and axial coding, I chose one transcript from each teacher’s sessions to analyze in greater depth. I selected these transcripts based on the extent to

which they typified the themes and patterns I had seen in the larger corpus of data. In

particular, I looked back at my field notes and memos from the open coding process for

places where I noted how an interaction signaled the ways in which students’ identities

were being built through the interactions. I used these notes to index the sessions,

reviewing the transcripts multiple times to confirm my hunches about its significance in

the larger corpus of data.

From the transcripts identified, I selected a short segment to microanalyze for the

students’ verbal responses and nonverbal behaviors during the interactions. I selected the

shorter segments based on the amount of turns at talk for both teacher and student, as

107

well as using my field notes and coding memos to identify significant portions of the lesson. Using microanalysis to analyze these short segments of the interactions I was able to identify ways in which students’ literate identities developed through the interactions they engaged in with their teachers. In coding these shorter segments, I first looked for places where they reflected the categories I had already identified from the larger corpus of data as part of the students’ identity. Since identity is a dynamic process, however, I also looked for places where the short segment showed other categories of identity, as well. The purpose of the microanalysis, then, was to both exemplify the codes seen in the larger data set, as well as to show how students’ identities changed constantly and could not be nailed down to a single state of being.

My data analysis process involved several facets: constant comparison and the development of grounded theory, which involved transcription, open coding, and axial coding; and microanalysis. Each of these was discussed in detail above as it related to the ways in which I chose to answer my research questions. The following section will discuss issues of trustworthiness and transferability related to my study.

Trustworthiness and Transferability

As part of this research process, several steps were taken to ensure the trustworthiness of the findings. The data collection for this study took place over a 5- month period. For the first 6 weeks of this period, I met with the teachers twice a week for 3 hours each time as part of the requirements for the course. During this time, I collected documents and class discussions for analysis, and got to know and selected the

4 teachers who became the participants for this study. For the second 6 weeks, I

108

observed each teacher working with his or her student twice a week for 2 hours each session, conducted interviews, and collected threaded discussion responses. The remaining portion of the 5-month period, approximately 8 weeks, involved the gathering of final interviews, in-class observations, and assessment data 3 to 5 weeks after the school year began. Collecting data over a 5-month time period that resulted in 40 observation transcripts, 20 interview transcripts, 100 pages of field notes, and numerous work samples from each of the students and teachers meant that I had prolonged and persistent engagement with the participants

Triangulation

To strengthen the data set, a triangulation of research methods was employed.

Triangulation of the data added trustworthiness to my findings. Document analysis,

interviews, and observations were conducted to gather information from the teachers and

students. Document analysis was conducted on teachers’ and students’ written

assignments, teachers’ and students’ written reflections, and in class and on-line

discussion transcripts throughout the course’s duration. Interviews were conducted with

the teachers who agreed to participate in the study. Interviews were conducted with the 4

students whom the teachers tutored. Finally, observations of the tutoring sessions were

conducted. Multiple sources of evidence are one way to measure the quality of case

study research (Barone, 2004). However, as Stake (1995) states, “For data source

triangulation, we look to see if the phenomenon or case remains the same at other times,

in other spaces, or as persons interact differently” (p. 112). Results from the data analysis

of data sources were cross-checked with other data sources to search for themes and patterns not only within individual data sources, but also across the data sources.

109

Peer Debriefer

The use of a “peer debriefer” contributed to the validity of the data analysis. Data collection and analysis methods were shared with this person, who was also a doctoral student in the same field as I. This person was familiar with the tensions of doing qualitative research and was able to provide an important sounding board for issues that arose during the collection and analysis of the data. In particular, this person, along with my dissertation committee, provided extensive feedback on the analysis of the students’ identities, as the changing nature of them necessitated a “second pair of eyes” to confirm my hunches about how the students’ identities were being built through the data. The peer debriefer was able to read the transcripts and my analysis and provide feedback concerning alternate views of the data. Her interpretations of the data added to and extended my own understandings of the data.

Member Checks

Member checks were conducted to ensure data validity as data were transcribed and analyzed. Member checks are yet another way to measure the quality of case study research (Barone, 2004). Portions of the transcripts of the teachers’ sessions were shared with them as they were completed, and they provided feedback concerning how accurately they represented what had occurred during the sessions. In all four cases, the teachers stated that my transcriptions were accurate representations of what had occurred in their sessions. In addition, I shared my interpretations about the students’ identities with the teachers, who were able to confirm my hunches, as they knew the students on a deeper level than I did.

110

Transferability

Through the presentation of four unique cases in the teacher-student dyads, I sought to present my interpretation of the students’ processes of identity development, which was unique to each student. However, through the analysis, similarities were also found across the four cases, which are presented in chapter 4. These similarities indicate the presence of salient aspects to the identity development of struggling readers that may be applicable in other situations. By making my process of collection, analysis, and presentation of the data visible in this chapter, and through the measures presented that increased the trustworthiness of my findings, the reader may determine the extent to which the theories I have formed will apply to other situations. This is the essence of case study research, as Stake states, “The function of research is not to map and conquer the world but to sophisticate the beholding of it” (Stake, 1995, p. 43). Dyson (as cited in

Barone, 2004) described case study as a methodology that does not offer information about causality, but does provide information on the dimensions of teaching and learning.

As the research on schema theory (Anderson, 1984) asserts, people learn by adding new knowledge to existing knowledge, thereby creating mental models of situations that add to and refine their current understandings. Case study research allows for the modification of existing knowledge through the presentation of a unique case that may confirm or disconfirm current understandings. It is the intent of this study to add to and refine our current understandings of struggling readers in light of the particularities of these unique cases.

111

As the research process came to an end, I made decisions about how to share the

report. Choosing a textual representation which represented the complexity of the views

of the participants was a daunting task, and a traditional write-up seemed insufficient in

this area. For this reason, I have chosen to use the first person throughout this

dissertation in an attempt to communicate the fact that I was very much a part of the

participants’ actions in the situation.

Summary

The purpose of my study was to relate the developing literate identities of students struggling with reading to the interactions they engaged in with their teachers within the context of one-to-one tutoring. In this chapter, I have presented the methodology used to gather and analyze the data for this study, as well as the research context. I have also discussed the theoretical orientation I took throughout this study, including the use of qualitative, naturalistic, constructivist research. I will discuss my findings from my analysis of the data in chapter 4 as they relate to my research questions.

112

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

Introduction

The purpose of my study was to characterize the interactions between teachers

and students in a one-to-one tutoring situation and to relate these interactions to the

students’ developing literate identities. Three research questions formed the basis for

my inquiry:

1. What is the perspective of the teacher on the assessment, evaluation, and

instruction of struggling readers? How does this perspective influence the

interactions between teacher and student in the tutoring situation?

2. What is the nature of the interactions between teachers and students within a one-

to-one tutoring program for struggling readers?

3. How do the interactions between teacher and student influence the shifting literate

identities of students identified as struggling readers?

To address question one, I coded the data for examples of the teachers’ beliefs about the assessment, evaluation, and instruction of struggling readers. I then coded the data for themes and patterns in the teacher-student interactions, responding to question two. In characterizing the interactions, I looked for places where the teachers’ beliefs

113

about struggling readers were reflected in the interactions, answering the second part of question one. To respond to question three I used microanalysis to analyze a portion of one session from each dyad, and related the results of this microanalysis to the larger corpus of data by identifying how the themes found through the microanalysis played out within the rest of the sessions. A detailed discussion of the methods I used to analyze the data was presented in chapter 3.

The results of the data analysis for each dyad will be presented separately. A cross-case analysis of the data across the dyads will be presented in chapter 5. By presenting the data on a case by case basis first, I hope to tell each dyad’s story as revealed in the data in a detailed manner, and then tie these understandings together through the analysis of the cases across one another, highlighting themes that emerged across all four of the cases.

Jenny and Ethan

In the following sections, the dyad of Jenny and Ethan will be described. First, I will provide a discussion of Ethan, the student, as a reader. Second, I will describe the perspective of Jenny, the teacher, on the assessment, evaluation, and instruction of struggling readers. I will then provide a description of the structure of this dyad’s tutoring sessions. Next, I will discuss the types of teacher-student interactions that occurred within the tutoring sessions between Jenny and Ethan. Finally, I will discuss the identity shifts that occurred in Ethan through the interactions.

114

Ethan

From the first moment I met Ethan, his enthusiasm and eagerness towards working with Jenny showed me that he enjoyed reading and saw himself as someone who was capable of becoming a good reader. Interview data from both Ethan and Jenny showed that the fact he had been labeled as a struggling reader had not affected his attitude towards reading or his views of himself as a reader in the least. During the first interview, Ethan responded to the question, “How would you describe yourself as a reader?” by stating,

That I can improve on my reading and I will always do that for the rest of my life.

Interview #1, 6/14/06

Ethan’s statement was not a description of how he saw himself as a reader, but rather was a description of how he viewed his skills as a reader. This was an interpretation of the question shared by all 4 of the student participants, who used the question as an opportunity to describe the skills they had as readers. He acknowledged the fact that he could improve on his reading, but by following up with the fact that he always will improve, he communicated a belief that reading is a skill he will always work to improve as a part of his life, not because he struggled any more than anyone else. Ethan also felt that others, including his teachers, family, and friends, saw him in a similar way, because he responded to interview questions that asked him to describe how these people would describe him as a reader with statements such as,

Probably that I can improve, but that a lot of kids can, too.

Interview #2, 7/24/06

115

Ethan did not feel that his experiences as a reader made him different than anyone else who was working to become a better reader. In collecting and analyzing the data, I also began to notice another method Ethan used to normalize his struggles in reading: coping comments. When Ethan struggled to articulate a response, he would make a comment that made the error seem like a normal part of the reading process. In the following transcript excerpt, Ethan commented on a word that had given him trouble in the passage he had just finished reading. His use of the word “you” in lines 3 and 4 communicates that he feels that he is not the only person who has struggled with this word – it is a common error that could be made by anyone.

Ethan 1 Yeah, this word is so hard. Jenny 2 Adolescent Ethan 3 Yeah, it gets you. You have all these little pieces of 4 words you know… Session #3, 6/26/06

For the purposes of discussing Ethan’s literate identity, coping comments illustrate an important point. Ethan knew that he struggled with aspects of reading, but did not see this struggle as anything particularly remarkable.

Ethan talked about books he had enjoyed reading, books he hoped to read in the future, and his preferences related to reading. He had a reading life outside of school, finding time to read books in his family’s “reading room” and discuss books with his friends. Ethan was a sports, war, and reptile enthusiast, and his desire to further his experiences in these areas through reading allowed Jenny to capitalize on these interests in the tutoring sessions. Ethan was enthusiastic about the books Jenny chose to have him read, as evidenced by his ability to articulate in detail the connections he was able to make based on his previous experiences. Jenny had to work hard to keep Ethan on task at

116

times, as his tendency was to begin talking about a connection he had made, and lose

track of the task at hand.

Ethan's so interested, and he talks about it, and so, I mean it's like OK, we gotta

go (laughing)! I kept going back to the task not because he didn't really know what the task was but because we had to go, we had to keep going.

Interview #2, 7/24/06

Although Ethan saw the value in reading and possessed a desire to improve his

reading skills, reading was certainly not a priority in Ethan’s life. As mentioned earlier,

Ethan had a wide variety of interests, and when asked what his favorite subjects were in school or what he would do in his spare time, Ethan did not mention reading at all. When prompted, Ethan was able to articulate his reading life in detail, but this was not at the forefront of his mind in describing himself as a reader. Ethan, although enthusiastic and willing, did not see himself as first a reader, but rather first interested in sports, wars, and reptiles. One way to learn more about these topics that were important to him was through reading. Ethan’s journal entries following each tutoring session consistently focused on how good he felt about reading because he enjoyed the topics of the books he had read, which Jenny ensured were always about sports, wars, or reptiles (see Figure

4.1). Reading, for Ethan, was a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.

117

Figure 4.1: Examples of Ethan’s journal entries.

Ethan’s attitude towards reading did not change significantly over the course of

the study. He remained generally positive about himself as a reader. Ethan’s specific

descriptions of himself as a reader, however, did change. Ethan’s attitude towards

reading is illustrated by his responses to the interview question, “Describe yourself as a

reader,” summarized in the table below.

Interview #1, [I] read really hard words, to sound them out. 6/14/06 Interview #2, I give action, like right after the page, I picture the action in my head. 7/24/06 Interview #3, If I don’t really like a book I can always pick a new one and start 10/6/06 reading that one.

Table 4.1: Ethan’s interview responses describing himself as a reader. 118

Ethan described his abilities to read words well in his first response. When probed, Ethan could not think of anything else beyond reading words that he did well as a reader. This is in contrast to the second interview, at the completion of the tutoring sessions. Ethan described himself in terms of how he constructed meaning while reading, and when prompted, was able to elaborate on what he did well as a reader. Ethan also described his process of looking back in the text when asked what he did well as a reader. During the third interview, Ethan again described himself as a reader in terms of his ability to choose books for independent reading that he enjoyed. Ethan’s views of himself as a reader transformed over the course of this study from describing his abilities to decode words to his ability to act independently as a reader when choosing books. Ethan no longer saw local, specific skills, such as decoding words, as defining who he was as a reader, but rather saw global, broad skills such as monitoring enjoyment of reading as a key aspect of who he was as a reader. The following quote from his teacher, Jenny, illustrates how

Ethan’s positive approach to reading was manifest throughout the study.

Yeah, he just really um, everything's just OK, you know, I mean

things are, I mean his father had back surgery and I think heart surgery

during the school year, and his mom let me know, and it didn't seem to

really, I didn't see any affect on him, so I don't know, he's really

willing to work with me, and very willing to read whatever I bring in,

and he seems happy about it, he is engaged, he is always bringing up

things he knows about it or experiences he's had, so I think he's pretty

interested in reading and sees himself as a reader.

Interview #2, 7/24/06

119

Ethan was entering fourth grade during the summer in which the study took place.

Ethan was extremely enthusiastic about his participation in the tutoring sessions, always

arriving ready to work on whatever his teacher had prepared (Field notes). Jenny had

been Ethan’s teacher the previous year and wished to work with him over the summer to

further his reading skills. Ethan had been pulled out for reading instruction to a special

classroom set aside for reading intervention. At the end of the study, Ethan described

himself as a reader by saying, “I think of myself as a reader that can improve in all my reading no matter what it is, when I am reading, whenever I am reading a book, if I had trouble with a word, I can think back to that.” (Interview #2, 7/24/06).

Jenny

A struggling reader has difficulty with what to do when he comes upon an unfamiliar word. This child may not use the three cueing systems or may rely heavily on one of them. His reading is segmented and lacks fluency and expression, therefore meaning may get lost while reading.

Written reflection, 5/15/06

This quote, taken from a reflection completed during the first class meeting in May, exemplifies Jenny’s views of struggling readers. In this quote, Jenny referred to four

areas of weakness that might be seen in a struggling reader: word solving strategies, use

of the cueing systems, fluency, and comprehension. Interestingly, Jenny wrote this

statement before she selected Ethan for tutoring. When asked why she chose to work with Ethan, Jenny stated,

I saw that he struggled in reading and other academic areas, too, so that's kind of

why I picked him to help him, going over directions and understanding what

120

questions are asking, and with his fluency, all of those were cues to me that

he would benefit from additional work.

Interview #1 6/14/06

Jenny selected Ethan because of his lack of fluency and ability to make meaning from a text, both of which were reflected in her initial description of a struggling reader, prior to her selecting Ethan to work with during the summer. The value she held for Ethan’s reading to become more fluent was also reflected in her views about struggling readers in general. Jenny expressed that fluency was a key to success on standardized tests.

The time, I think if you’re more fluent, you have more time to think about the

answers, I always took tests very, very slow and I felt the pressure of the time

whereas some of my readers who read more quickly I don’t think would have as

much time pressure on them.

Interview #1, 6/14/06

Jenny approached the assessment, evaluation, and instruction of struggling readers from a balanced perspective, believing that all of these elements form an integrated process that may be used to assist struggling readers. For example, in the second written reflection she completed for class, Jenny commented,

I was reminded of the importance of balanced intervention instruction. When

working with a student it is important to include word study, fluency development

or maintenance, and comprehension. Often I have thought that intervention

should focus on the areas of weakness for a struggling reader, however, it is

important not to just focus on what the child struggles with, but to develop each of

these three important aspects of reading. Written reflection #2, 5/24/06

121

This statement reflects her understanding that instruction for struggling readers should be

balanced and designed to meet their needs, based on assessment information.

Throughout the data from Jenny, the understanding that assessment is a step in the

process of instructing struggling readers was evident. For example, Jenny stated,

The assessment is not the end point. I think it's always, I feel like

testing and assessment and evaluation is always looked at as an endpoint.

It's so much a beginning point, too, for where they student can go, and

knowing what areas to work on is important.

Interview #1, 6/14/06

Though Jenny possessed the view that assessment was a step in the process of

instructing struggling readers, she did not use a wide variety of assessments in her teaching. Jenny stated that she used observation and standardized test results to inform her instruction prior to her enrollment in this course, and she commented,

Assessment always informs what you, what the kids, how they picked up

what they know, and where you should go with future instruction. And I

think these tests are wonderful, I mean, I had Ethan in my class for a

whole year and I feel like I am learning so much more from these

assessments and where exactly I need to go next with my instruction, so

really to key into where instruction should be led.

Interview #1, 6/14/06

In this statement, Jenny referred to the tests she had been learning how to use during the

course she was enrolled in that was associated with the tutoring program. The

assessments presented in class were not ones she had been using in her classroom. Annie,

122

her colleague who was also a participant in this study, commented that her school did not

mandate the use of any assessments, so the teachers used a limited variety of them in

their teaching (Interview #1, 6/14/06). Throughout the course, Jenny learned how to use a variety of reading assessments that informed her instruction with Ethan.

Jenny felt that assessment and evaluation should be used to tie instruction to

students’ interests and needs. Throughout her lesson plans’ anecdotal notes and

reflections, Jenny referred to how her decisions were based on Ethan’s interests and

needs. For example, Jenny explained her reasons for teaching Ethan about the structure

of nonfiction texts during one particular lesson plan,

Based on what I learned during the expectation grid lesson, I knew that learning

about the structure of nonfiction print and teacher modeling should be incorporated into

this lesson.

Lesson #5 reflection, 7/3/06

Jenny had been teaching third grade for 4 years in a suburban Catholic elementary

school. The elementary school in which she teaches is located in an affluent area and is

well connected to the university, hosting student teachers and student observers on a

regular basis. As an undergraduate student, she received a bachelor’s degree in early

childhood education from the same university in which she was enrolled for her master’s

degree in literacy. Reading, according to Jenny, should be done so that “it’s an enjoyable

process, so, that we use every day of our lives” (Interview #2, 7/24/06). In sum, Jenny’s

views on the assessment, evaluation, and instruction of struggling readers were process

oriented and rooted in the idea that assessment should be used to make instructional

decisions based on students’ needs.

123

Jenny and Ethan’s Tutoring Sessions

Jenny’s value of balanced intervention when working with struggling readers was reflected in the ways in which she approached her sessions with Ethan. She utilized the

Literacy Lesson Framework, discussed in chapter 3, to structure her sessions, and paid careful attention to the need to cover all of the areas. She commented that the writing portion always seemed to get cut short due to the large amount of time she devoted to the guided reading portion of the lesson with Ethan (Interview #2, 7/24/06), and during one of the sessions she specifically told Ethan that they needed to spend more time on the writing because it was always getting cut short (Session # 4). Jenny did not dismiss the difficulties she had with fitting all of the elements of the framework in to the 2-hour sessions, but rather looked for ways in which she could make time for all of them in the sessions. On two different occasions, during session two and session four, Jenny stated in her lesson plan reflection that she chose to incorporate the teacher read aloud portion of the lesson into the guided reading portion when she noticed that the text was too difficult for Ethan to read on his own. Jenny had chosen the book based on Ethan’s interests, which was in line with what had been stated by Tancock (1994) in her description of the Literacy Lesson Framework, an article Jenny had read for class. In this article, Tancock states that the selection of guided reading texts should not be done based on the published reading levels, but rather based on student interests and needs, with some consideration given to the difficulty of the text. Jenny chose Pink and Say

(Polacco, 1994) to read during the second session because Ethan had mentioned a strong interest in reading about wars. Pink and Say is a book about the Civil War that is at a third grade reading level. Ethan’s instructional level was second grade, so the book was

124

beyond his instructional level. Ethan struggled with portions of the text, but the difficulty was mainly caused by the length of the text and the vernacular dialogue used throughout the text. Jenny discussed the vernacular dialogue with Ethan and assisted him at these points. During this session, the guided reading portion took one hour, half of the total session. Although reading aloud from a text used for guided reading was not the intention of the book sharing portion of the Literacy Lesson Framework, Jenny said to

Ethan, “Do you mind if I read for a while, because this is a very long story?” Jenny combined the two elements to compensate for the extra time devoted to guided reading and to make the reading less of a challenge for Ethan. In future sessions, Jenny strove to choose books that were at Ethan’s instructional level that would also interest him, although she did mention what a challenge this process ended up being for her (Interview

#2, 7/24/06).

This example illustrates another element of Jenny and Ethan’s sessions: flexibility. Although Jenny arrived at each session with detailed lesson plans, she was willing to change her plans when Ethan’s needs or time constraints dictated. As mentioned previously, Ethan enjoyed sharing personal connections he made to the stories read and activities completed during the lessons, which added time to each portion of the framework. Jenny listened to Ethan’s comments and used them to inform her instruction.

She used expectation grids (Caldwell & Leslie, 2005) to structure Ethan’s comprehension of expository texts, and she noticed that he was more successful in using this tool when he had more background knowledge on the topic. The first time she used expectation grids, the book was about chameleons, and the second time it was about baseball. Both of these were topics in which Ethan had said he was interested (Interview #1, 6/14/06).

125

However, Ethan struggled during the lesson on the book about baseball, and Jenny

surmised that this was because he did not have as much background knowledge about this

topic (Lesson #5 reflection). The third time she used the expectation grid, the book was

about Komodo dragons, returning to the lizards topic with which Ethan was more

familiar.

In addition to the expectation grid, which was focused on developing Ethan’s comprehension, Jenny also assisted Ethan with his fluency. On three occasions, she and

Annie met together with their students to practice and perform reader’s theatre plays.

Jenny also engaged Ethan in word sorts during the sessions to help him further his

knowledge of letters and sound patterns in words.

Jenny and Ethan met at the parish center connected to the school. Here, they had

a quiet room to themselves with no distractions. Ethan’s mom dropped him off and

picked him up after the sessions, arriving late twice to drop him off because they had

forgotten about the sessions (Field notes). On four occasions, they had to meet in the

public library because the parish center was closed. In this environment, they chose a

study corral in which to work that afforded them privacy and isolation from distractions.

Jenny and Ethan’s sessions were characterized by balance and flexibility, with a

focus on Ethan and his needs as a reader. In the following section, the types of

interactions that occurred during Jenny and Ethan’s sessions will be discussed.

Types of Teacher-Student Interactions

126

included the subcategories of scaffolding instruction and the teaching of reading

strategies. I found data in Jenny’s sessions to support her use of revoicing as a

scaffolding technique, teaching word analysis as a reading strategy, and teaching the use of background knowledge as a reading strategy. Included under the use of questions were also several subcategories of questions. Jenny’s use of these categories of questions

is discussed in a section below.

Revoicing as an Instructional Scaffold

Of the 4 teachers in the study, Jenny used the technique of revoicing (O’Connor

& Michaels, 1993) Ethan’s responses for clarity the most frequently. Jenny used revoicing to check her own understanding of Ethan’s verbal responses and to provide him with a model of how to form a clear response. Interactions that included revoicing student responses were found in seven of her nine sessions, whereas none were found in

Jack’s sessions, and one example of revoicing responses was found in each of Annie’s and Nora’s sessions. One of the difficulties that Ethan had was with verbal expression; therefore Jenny used the technique of revoicing responses to assist him in clarifying his thoughts. Revoicing responses is one aspect of the scaffolding process because the teacher uses it to clarify, extend, and check his or her understanding of students’ responses. In this way, he or she ensures that the responses the student makes are indicative of work in the zone of proximal development. In the transcript below, Jenny posed a question to Ethan (lines 6 and 7), who responded with what Jenny thought was an accurate statement (lines 8 and 9, evidenced by the fact that she rephrased his response and added in key details that he missed (lines 10-14). Ethan did not respond to the revoicing, but rather looked away and rubbed his eyes, seemingly uninterested (line 18).

127

This transcript is from a section of the lesson on nonfiction conventions. Jenny talked

with Ethan about the various features of a nonfiction book that mark it as different from a

fiction book because she noticed in a previous lesson that he had difficulty using these conventions eff ectively as he read (Lesson #4 reflection).

Jenny 1 Well, the reason I picked this book, like I told you is because it is a 2 nonfiction book, and it has certain things that a nonfiction book contain 3 that are different from a storybook. If we opened up a storybook we 4 probably wouldn’t have a Table of Contents. I’m gonna write this on 5 our chart, nonfiction conventions, and a Table of Contents is one of the 6 terms. Why do you think the author of this book put in a table of 7 contents? Ethan 8 Um, because if you’re looking for how old they are you can go right to 9 it, because it’s a real story and not a fake. Jenny 10 Ok, so you’re saying that you can look through any of these lists and 11 you might not want to read the whole book, but you could go to say, 12 you said how old they are, so Old Age, and you want to know how old 13 will my guinea pig get, and you run your finger and that’s on page 20 14 so you can read that. And I have a page here that we’re going to use 15 later on, and it says the Table of Contents is to help the reader find what 16 they are looking for, so I’m gonna write the purpose is to help the 17 reader find key topics in the book. Ethan 18 (Looks away and rubs eyes.) Session #5, 7/3/06

The next transcript shows that Ethan, although seemingly uninterested in Jenny’s revoicing of his response in the above transcript, did internalize her statements and added the new information to his existing schema, formed during the lesson shared above, about a table of contents. Jenny used the revoicing technique in the next session to add to

Ethan’s response to her question about how the table of contents is used (lines 4 and 5).

Lines 8-11 indicate that Ethan was able to accurately explain what a table of contents was used for, integrating information from the previous session. In line 11 of the transcript above, Jenny said, “you might not want to read the whole book,” and Ethan said, in line 8 of the transcript below, “say you don’t want to read the whole book.” Jenny’s response

128

(lines 11-15) included another revoicing, but this revoicing was not used to correct or to extend Ethan’s response, but rather as a way for Jenny to check with Ethan that she understood his statement.

Jenny 1 And I turned to this page in the book, and can you remind me from 2 Monday what is this page called? Ethan 3 Um, the contents. Jenny 4 Ok, it’s sometimes called the contents, and sometimes it’s also called the 5 table of contents. Ethan 6 Yeah. Jenny 7 And why is it important for us to read the table of contents? Ethan 8 Um, say you don’t want to read the whole book, say you only want to 9 read, taking infield, you just want to read that, you’re just starting it, you 10 don’t know what positions are what, and your coach says go to first, and 11 you’ll know exactly what to do. Jenny 12 Exactly, you’ve got it, sometimes we’re not interested in reading the 13 whole nonfiction book, we just want specific information, and we want to 14 be able to find it without turning through every single page. Great! You 15 remembered that very well from Monday. Session #6, 7/5/06

In the two interactions discussed, Jenny used revoicing to clarify, extend, and check her understanding of Ethan’s responses. This technique was successful in teaching Ethan new information about a table of contents. By posing questions and revoicing the responses that Ethan provided to clarify, extend, or check her understanding of Ethan’s responses, Jenny was constantly assessing Ethan’s understanding and adapting instruction to his needs.

Teaching Word Analysis as a Reading Strategy

One of the areas that Jenny chose to focus her instruction on with Ethan was fluency. Having had Ethan as a student in her class during the previous year, Jenny had seen that Ethan did not implement strategies for solving words in his reading.

129

Sometimes I feel like he knows, and is able to kind of talk the talk, but doesn’t

implement them into, like he’ll know phonics rules, he’ll know to read to the end

of the sentence to try to figure out a word, but he doesn’t always use those

strategies while he’s reading, so to continue to develop strategies with him, but

for him to use them in what he’s reading.

Interview #1, 6/14/06

Jenny knew that this lack of word recognition skills would hinder Ethan’s fluency. Jenny administered the Qualitative Reading Inventory-IV (Leslie & Caldwell, 2005) to Ethan prior to the beginning of the tutoring sessions, and she noticed that there was a discrepancy between his scores on the word lists for recognition and identification, and that this discrepancy would influence his ability to read with fluency.

On the word list for the QRI… his score on the automatic, it seemed to be lifted by

the score on the identified, which is combined for the total score, but also, I’d like

to work on more automatic word identification to help increase his fluency, so,

word identification, word um recognition, fluency, those all will be part of the

during reading activities.

Interview #1, 6/14/06

Although Jenny did not teach word solving in a purposeful way, meaning she did not plan to teach Ethan word solving strategies as a way to improve his fluency, she taught them out of a need that Ethan had. While reading, Ethan would encounter difficulties with solving words, and Jenny would make a variety of moves to assist him in moving beyond this point of difficulty. Jenny knew, as evidenced by the comments discussed above, that the use of word solving strategies would increase Ethan’s fluency,

130

but there was no planned instruction that occurred surrounding the use of these strategies.

This instruction occurred primarily on the run, during the actual implantation of the

lesson.

Jenny’s approach to teaching Ethan word solving strategies may be described as

analytical. Jenny would focus Ethan’s attention on the whole word, then ask him to look

at familiar words he knew within the word, moving next to chunks or patterns that he was

familiar with, and finally focusing his attention on the letters within the words. This

approach is a whole to part approach, in that the whole word was looked at first, then broken down into smaller and smaller parts. The following transcript will show how

Jenny used the analytical approach to word solving in her instruction.

Ethan 1 cl…cl….climate. Jenny 2 You’ve got it, you have it. Ethan 3 Climate. Jenny 4 And that is an interesting word because the beginning says cli….i, and the 5 ending/ Ethan 6 The a sounds like an i. Jenny 7 Yeah it does. So you did a really good job figuring it out, probably from the 8 other words in the sentence, too. Ethan 9 And from science class. Jenny 10 Yeah, and from science class. Session #8, 7/19/06

In this interaction, Ethan first figured out the word, climate, on his own (line 1). Jenny

let him know that he had the correct word (line 2), and he repeated the word to check for

accuracy (line 3). In lines 4 and 5, Jenny drew Ethan’s attention to specific parts of the

word that made the word “interesting.” Lines 7 and 8 demonstrate how Jenny then brings

Ethan’s focus back to the whole word and its meaning, as she stated how he might have

been able to figure out the word using context clues as much as the phonetic clues.

131

Below is an e xample of a series of interactions between Jenny and Ethan that will further demonstrate h ow Jenny taught Ethan an analytical approach to word solving.

Ethan 1 Nine players in all work to do this. Six are star…stack….um… Jenny 2 Do you know what t-i-o-n makes? Ethan 3 I think its, um….eh Jenny 4 t-i-o-n, all those letters work together and say shun. So we have 5 sta…tioned. Ethan 6 Sta….tioned. Stationed. Jenny 7 Six are stationed… Ethan 8 Six are stationed in the infield and three in the outfield. The infield is 9 the… Jenny 10 Here we have that again that t-i-o-n, so try it. Por… Ethan 11 Por….portion Jenny 12 You’ve got it! The infield is the portion… Ethan 13 Of the field that surrounds the bases, the pitcher and pitcher’s mound. 14 The outfield is all the… Jenny 15 We had the same word back here, and we had foul something… Ethan 16 Oh territory! Jenny 17 Ter something, yes, territory. The territory is the… Ethan 18 Area that extends beyond the infield. Jenny 19 Great I knew you knew that word when we read it before, and once you 20 recognized it you knew it right away. 21 Discussion about the text, personal connections to the book. [2:18] Ethan 22 The pitcher starts the…ac…ac… Jenny 23 There’s that again, that t-i-o-n says… Ethan 24 Shun Jenny 25 Shun, so it says… Ethan 26 Action Jenny 27 Action, good, you’ve got it. Ethan 28 See I’m used to that word without the, I’ve seen that word without the i- 29 o-n, I keep forgetting for this word that the i-o-n goes with the t. Jenny 30 And it’s so useful when you find something you learn like the tion, you 31 can use it a lot, we’ve seen lots of words that we needed to use that, it’s 32 so useful that you use it a lot, like tion….let’s start over so we don’t 33 forget what we’ve read. Ethan 34 The pitcher starts out the action by de…de… Jenny 35 Let’s chunk it. Ethan 36 Live….liver….Delivering the ball to home plate from the pitcher’s 37 mound. Lines 1-21: 2 minutes, 7 seconds Session #7, 7/17/06 Lines 23-37: 1 minute, 7 seconds

132

In this section of the text, Ethan encountered five points of difficulty. In the first, which

occurred between lines 1-9, Ethan attempted to read through the word, but the ending was

unfamiliar to him. Jenny drew his attention immediately to the difficult portion of the

word, the “tion” ending, told him the sound they made, and then placed it back in the

context of the whole word, stationed. The structure of this interaction in terms of the

word analysis went from whole word, to the parts of the word, and back to the whole

word. In the second interaction, which occurred in lines 10-12, the difficulty was with

the same ending, so Jenny pointed out the similarity between “portion” and “stationed,”

and directed him to try the word. Ethan was successful with this whole word approach to

analysis. The third interaction occurred between lines 14-20. In this interaction, Jenny

did not direct Ethan’s attention to the parts of the word at all, but guided him in using his prior experiences with the word to figure it out. This was a completely whole word approach to analysis. Although Jenny did initiate a clue related to the word parts in line

17, Ethan had already solved the word using the context clue she provided him. The fourth interaction (lines 22-33) shows evidence of Ethan internalizing the analytical approach to word solving. The difficulty comes again from the “tion” ending to the word, and Jenny brings Ethan’s attention to this in line 23. In lines 28 and 29, Ethan discusses

how he had recognized the word act within the word action, which had caused him

difficulty with the ending “tion.” Ethan understood how to use the analytical approach to

word solving and could discuss why he had been unsuccessful in using the approach in

this instance. Line 36 also shows how Ethan used chunking. In this final interaction in

133

the transcript, Ethan makes his thinking public as he chunks the word. Jenny’s use of the analytical approach to word analysis was internalized by Ethan, making it a strategy he could use to become a more independent reader.

Teaching the Use of Background Knowledge as a Reading Strategy

The teachers in this study elicited background knowledge about the texts and topics they were reading with their students, and where the appropriate background knowledge did not exist, they built it. Jenny chose books that directly related to topics

Ethan was interested in reading about, including reptiles and baseball. This motivated

Ethan and assisted him in making connections to what he was reading (Jenny’s Case

Report, p. 5). Ethan was very generous with his offerings of background knowledge, and

Jenny used these moments to her advantage in helping Ethan construct meaning from the

text. In the follow ing interaction, Ethan and Jenny were reading aloud from the text,

Baseball Saved U s (Mochizuki & Lee, 1995). Ethan had made some predictions before

reading during a picture walk through the book, and they came to a spot in which one of

his predictions w as confirmed.

Jenny 1 You decided this was a mean guy in your prediction, who is it 2 really? Ethan 3 Yeah, their dad. Jenny 4 Can dads be sometimes angry and mean? Ethan 5 Yeah, I was kind of right. Jenny/Ethan 6 Teddy got up, kicked the crate he was sitting on and walked 7 away. I had never heard Teddy talk to dad that way before. Jenny 8 So it seems to me, I’m reading and I’m thinking about the story 9 that being in one close space with not so many fun things to do, 10 what happened? Ethan 11 You get annoyed and you just want to tear something up. Jenny 12 Yeah, have you ever ridden in a car with your brother? Ethan 13 Yeah. Jenny 14 It’s a small space, not so many things to do, and do you start 15 picking on each other and get annoyed with each other? 134

Ethan 16 Yeah, and that’s what happens when you get in sand for a long 17 time. We were at the beach once, and we were there for about 18 five hours of our day and I got really annoyed with my brother, 19 for some reason, I don’t think he did anything. I was just in the 20 sand for so long, my head got, I just had to scream. Jenny 21 I think that’s kind of what this is about, he just said, “Can you 22 get me a cup of water?”, but he was so annoyed that he said, 23 “Get it yourself!” Time elapsed: 1 minute, 40 seconds Session #1, 6/19/06

Jenny elicits Ethan’s background knowledge about the problem in the story to check and

deepen his comprehension of the story. In line 4, she asks Ethan to think about whether

his prediction was correct based on his background experiences with dads. In lines 8-10,

Jenny models how she uses her background knowledge to construct meaning from the text and, in line 12, asks Ethan to apply some of his knowledge to the situation. One of

Ethan’s strengths is making personal connections to the book, but in lines 21-23, Jenny solidifies these connections by applying Ethan’s story to the text that they are reading.

Jenny elicited background knowledge from Ethan and helped him to connect it to the story’s meaning. Ethan was proficient in the use of background knowledge, but he needed guidance from Jenny in making the connection between his background knowledge about a topic and the elements of the story. At the end of this lesson, Jenny reflected,

I will continue to choose books based on the student’s interests that were shared

with me in the interview. Choosing books written on topics the student is

interested in will make this summer’s reading even more enjoyable.

Lesson #1 reflection, 6/19/06

135

Jenny’s abilities to tap into Ethan’s interests and to teach him to effectively use his background knowledge while reading were critical to the progress Ethan was able to make during the summer.

Types of Questions Asked by Jenny

Jenny’s use of questions represented questions from each of the categories identified during data analysis (see chapter 3 for a discussion of these categories). Table

4.2 summarizes Jenny’s use of questions during the sessions.

Jenny Probing 36% Monitoring 21% Leading 12% Clarifying 11% Extending 7% Assisting 5% Connecting 4% Managing 4% Restating <1%

Table 4.2: Types of questions asked by Jenny.

Three of the 4 teachers in this study relied on monitoring questions as the primary type of question they asked their students. Jenny, however used probing questions more often than monitoring. The monitoring questions asked by Jenny were designed for her to monitor Ethan’s comprehension and his memory of the story, and to model the use of self-monitoring for Ethan. These questions included questions in which she asked Ethan to give the definition of a word or concept, but rather than asking directly for the meaning

136

of the word, Jenny would begin her questions, “Do you know what….means?” Jenny’s

questions placed the responsibility for the comprehension back in the hands of Ethan, and

asked him to respond in his own words as the questions required interpretation rather than

just a surface reading of the text. Table 4.3 displays the types of monitoring questions that Jenny asked Ethan.

Session #1a You decided this was a mean guy in your prediction, who is it? Session So it seems to me, I’m reading and I’m thinking about the story that being #1b in one close space with not so many fun things to do, what happened? Session #1c So let’s talk about how did they make those fields? Session #4 D o you want to look it up? Do you know what professional is? Session #5 So I will give you the scissors, and I want you to find the Table of Contents in here, in this book. Session #7 Can you give me a synonym for aim, that we read in the story?

Table 4.3: Examples of monitoring questions asked by Jenny.

The sample of monitoring questions used by Jenny provided in the table above show

Jenny using monitoring questions to help her monitor Ethan’s understanding, but also to involve him in monitoring his own comprehension. In Session #1a, Jenny asked Ethan,

“You decided this was a mean guy in your prediction, who is it?” This question reminded Ethan of his previous prediction and asked him to revise it based on what he had read in the story. Through this question, Jenny was communicating the importance of revising predictions while reading, encouraging Ethan to monitor his comprehension.

She was also using the question as a way for her to informally assess Ethan’s

understanding of what he was reading. Session #1b displays Jenny’s use of modeling to

137

demonstrate self-monitoring for Ethan, but Ethan is also included in the construction of

the knowledge about the story (“what happened?”). The use of “let’s” in Session #1c

indicates a collaborative approach to constructing meaning from the story. The questions

from Session #4 encourage Ethan to monitor his understanding of the meanings of words

he reads, providing him with a method for doing so, looking up the word. Sessions #5

and #7 include questions that are directly designed for Jenny to monitor Ethan’s understanding of content, but in so doing, Jenny also invited him in to the process of

constructing meaning. (“I am going to give you the scissors”). Jenny’s monitoring

questions had a right or wrong answer, but they were posed to involve Ethan in

discovering the answer with Jenny’s guidance. In this way, her monitoring questions had two functions: as informal assessment and as a way to teach Ethan to monitor his own

reading.

Managing was only used 4% of the time by Jenny, the second to last category of

her questioning use, whereas it was used more frequently by each of the other teachers.

Jenny used a collaborative approach in her interactions with Ethan. As an example of the

collaborative approach, the managing questions Jenny did pose were used to ask Ethan to

make a decision about the course of the lesson, rather than to manage his behavior or to dictate what would happen next. Table 4.4 highlights specific managing questions used by Jenny over the course of the tutoring sessions.

138

Lesson #2 This is a pretty long story, would you mind if I read a few pages? Lesson #3 Ok, we could put it on here, and then cross it off, but you’d rather wait? Lesson #5 Ok, which one do you want to include? Lesson #6 Ok, I was thinking equipment. Do you want me to add that on here? Lesson #7 Would you like me to read it first so you can get an idea of the rhythm, or would you like to try it on your own? Lesson #8 And last week when we met I read them first and you read it after me, do you still want to do it this way?

Table 4.4: Examples of managing questions asked by Jenny.

Jenny used phrases in her questions such as “would you mind…” (Lesson #2), “you’d rather wait…” (Lesson #3), “do you want” (Lesson #5, Lesson #6, Lesson #8), and

“would you like” (Lesson #7). These phrases placed Ethan as a collaborative partner in the decision making that occurred in the lessons. Although she involved Ethan in the decisions, Jenny also followed well structured lesson plans based on Ethan’s needs as a reader. Jenny used explaining and modeling as methods of demonstrating to Ethan what was expected of him procedurally during the lessons. Jenny gave Ethan choice within activities, but not in whether to do activities themselves. Jenny’s managing questions were one of the least used categories of questions used during her lessons, because she used explaining and modeling to ensure Ethan understood lesson procedures and she did not give him choices in every aspect of the lesson.

The previous sections have described Ethan and Jenny, as well as the structure of their tutoring sessions. In addition, the types of interactions that occurred between Ethan and Jenny were discussed. The following section will articulate the connection between

Ethan’s process of shifting literate identity and the interactions that occurred between him and Jenny. 139

Literate Identity Shifts and the Teacher-Student Interactions

Ethan came in to this study with a positive literate identity, and this did not vary throughout the study. This was seen through his constant willingness to participate in all reading related activities, both in and out of school. Jenny structured her lessons around books he was interested in, facilitating his involvement in the lessons. As mentioned previously, Jenny taught using a collaborative approach that placed Ethan as a partner in the learning process. His contributions were respected and valued as contributions to the learning of both teacher and student.

In coding the transcriptions from Ethan and Jenny’s sessions, a dominant category emerged that consisted of what I chose to call coping behaviors. Due to Ethan’s positive view of himself as a reader, he did not readily acknowledge his struggles. When he encountered difficulty during a lesson, he would often make a statement that normalized the error, naming it as something that everyone probably had trouble with, or projecting the responsibility for the error back on to the text itself, citing a confusing passage or spelling. These comments helped Ethan to cope with the error without “losing face,” or projecting an image of himself as a reader that was anything other than positive. The coping comments also revealed how Ethan worked to strengthen his already positive literate identity.

Evidence of the use of coping behaviors was found in all nine of Jenny and

Ethan’s tutoring sessions. There were 22 examples of coping behaviors found in Jenny and Ethan’s sessions. Ethan used coping behaviors consistently across the tutoring sessions to normalize his errors and maintain the positive view he held of himself as a reader. Jenny validated his use of these comments through her verbal and nonverbal

140

responses to him. For example, in Session # 1, Ethan reacted to an error he made when writing a response to a text with a coping comment, which was validated by Jenny’s verbal respon se.

Ethan 1 Yeah, I got the r and the f confused. Jenny 2 I like that you can see that when you' re writing. Ethan 3 I just think that r and f are glued together because 4 my friend's birthday is today. Jenny 5 Who's your fri en d? Ethan 6 Cameron - we're taking him to the pool today for 7 his birthday. Jenny 8 Ok. Ethan continues writing. Session #1, 6/19/06

In lines 3 and 4, Ethan uses a coping comment to explain the reason for his error, going to a friend’s birthday party later in the day. Jenny acknowledges this as something important by asking Ethan about his friend and allowing him to explain a little about what will be happening at the party. Her comment in line 8 closes this interaction and

Ethan begins writing once again. This interaction is an example of how Jenny allowed

Ethan to use coping comments to explain his errors by validating their importance through her verbal responses. As a type of interaction between Ethan and Jenny, coping comments were taken up by Jenny as valid interpretations of the errors. In another example, Jenny used Ethan’s coping comment as a “teachable moment.”

Ethan 1 That thing is hard to remember, because you think it has the cuh 2 sound and it has the s sound. Jenny 3 Yeah, the same thing is true of the g sound, sometimes it says juh 4 and sometimes it says guh. Session #3, 6/26/06

Following a miscue when reading aloud, Ethan responded with a coping comment (line

1). His comment named the error as something that was difficult for everyone to do

141

through his use of the word “you”, rather than “I.” Jenny responds by agreeing with

Ethan, then extending his comment to apply to a concept they had been working on

throughout the summer, hard and soft g sounds (lines 3 and 4). Analyzing the use of

coping comments in Ethan and Jenny’s interactions revealed how Ethan used these

comments to strengthen and maintain a positive view of himself as a reader, and how

Jenny’s validation of these comments allowed him to use them repeatedly over the course

of the summer.

The transcript below is from a 4-minute portion of one of Ethan and Jenny’s

sessions. The 4-minute segment was chosen for further in-depth analysis for several

reasons. First, it was a portion of the lesson that struck me while I was actively observing

it as a representative moment of the work Ethan and Jenny were completing over the

summer. It contained elements of the collaborative approach that Jenny was employing; it showed Ethan at a point of difficulty; and it was a pivotal moment in the tutoring

sessions. In this lesson, Jenny introduced a tool for comprehending nonfiction text, the

expository expectation grid (Leslie & Caldwell, 2005), to Ethan prior to reading the text

and asked him to name some categories he thought might be included in a book about

chameleons. Ethan struggled to name categories he would expect to read about in the

book. Jenny learned from Ethan’s struggle and increased her use of modeling in future

lessons to assist Ethan with understanding the task (Lesson #3 reflection, 7/5/06). The

4-minute segment below is their interaction around one of his responses as he struggled

to name categories.

Jenny 1 So what we’re going to do is use this grid to help us as 21:00 2 we’re reading today. It’s called an expectation grid, 3 and what it does, the purpose of using this grid is to

142

4 help us decide what we might expect to find when 5 we’re reading the story. So, what might you expect to 6 find when you read a book called chameleons? Ethan 7 Um… Jenny 8 I’m going to write chameleons right there in the 9 middle. Ethan 10 What they eat. Jenny 11 Ok, so one of the categories that you might expect to 12 find is what they eat. Ethan 13 Mmm hmmm Jenny 14 And each of these sections is one of these categories. 21:12 15 And I think what they eat is a great category, and 16 everything we write in here is going to be about what 17 they eat. Anything else you might expect to find? Ethan 18 Um, how they blend in, like camouflage. Leaning forward on hands, looks up at Jenny for confirmation. Jenny 19 Ok, so what, let’s give kind of a big category for that, 20 what are you talking about when you’re talking about 21 their skin blending in. How they? Ethan 22 How they blend in when they’re enemies come by. Puts finger to his lips, looks up at Jenny for confirmation. Jenny 23 Ok, so if you’re talking about how they blend in, Ethan is looking at 24 you’re talking about this outside of them, so we might the book, eyes 25 say how they….? downcast. Ethan 26 Um, how they…. Rolls his eyes to the ceiling, looks straight ahead. Jenny 27 What might the colors tell us about? Ethan 28 Um…. Looks back down at the book, sideways at Jenny as she starts talking. Tapping hand on knee. Jenny 29 You’re on the right track, I’m thinking of the name of Rolls head up to 30 a big category, describing how they change colors the ceiling, looks 31 from green to brown… down and places fingers at temples, looks back down at the book, squints eyes 143

Ethan 32 I know that word, I can’t…. Gestures with his hands in frustration, puts finger to temple, closes eyes, half smiling Jenny 33 Do you know any parts to the word you’re thinking of? Leaning on hand, 34 closing eyes Ethan 35 Um….why won’t you come out? Smiling, leaning on hand, squints eyes Ethan 36 Um, shaded….. Ethan 37 I know it’s in there…. Jenny 38 How about your dog, if you wanted to tell a story Looks up at Jenny, 39 about your dog or your cat, and you wanted to tell loses smile 40 about their color, what would you talk about, how 41 they….? Ethan 42 Um……. Looks back down at the book, looks up and begins to squint and smile… Jenny 43 You would be describing their… Ethan 44 Colors? Looks up at Jenny for confirmation Jenny 45 Ok, colors would be one thing. What about if we Looks down, 46 wanted to describe their feet, and their tail, and their puzzled look on 47 eyes, what would be one word to describe all those face 48 things? Ethan 49 Differences? Looks up at Jenny, immediately looks away when he knows he is wrong Jenny 50 Ok… Puzzled look, squinting Jenny 51 So if you have a dog and you decided to say he was Sideways glance at 52 brown and he had a long wagging tail and his fur was Jenny, looks 53 long and he had a pointed nose, what would all of straight ahead, 54 those things be describing? then back down at the book Ethan 55 That…..um….. Half smile, tapping hands on leg Jenny 56 How the dog…..what sense would you use? Fiddling with cast, looking at book Ethan 57 Eyesight Barely glances up at Jenny, keeps 144

eyes downcast Jenny 58 OK, and what do you do with your eyes, you… Ethan 59 Um, See? Does not look up, fiddles with cast. Jenny 60 Uh huh, and so when you see these things you’re 61 telling about how they Ethan 62 How they look? Does not look up, looks at book, begins to smile when he knows the answer is right. Jenny 63 How they look, great, see where I was trying to lead 64 you? Ethan 65 Oh yeah Big smile, still looking down, playing with fingers. Jenny 66 Does blending and changing colors fall into this how 67 they look? Ethan 68 Yeah Looks sideways at the paper, nods, smiles Jenny 69 Definitely, but I also wanted to make sure there’s other Looks at Jenny, 70 things that can fall into that blank, the eyes the feet and smile, nods, puts 71 the tail. hands behind head Ethan 72 Yeah Jenny 73 You were on the right path, 25:14 Ethan 74 Yeah, I/ Smiling Jenny 75 /and I just wanted you to make it a little bit bigger so Smiles and looks 76 that we could include a few more things. Ok, so we at Jenny, nods, sits 77 have what they eat, how they look, what other things up in his chair. 78 do you expect to find? Session #3, 6/26/06

Ethan used nonverbal behaviors, such as smiling and looking downward to communicate both feelings of dependence and independence throughout the lesson. Data analysis of the 4-minute segment found four themes related to identity development through this interaction, and each of these will be discussed below. These themes will also be discussed in terms of their relationship to the larger corpus of data.

145

Attempting

Ethan’s confidence in himself as a reader resulted in his willingness to attempt

any task that Jenny posed to him with no reluctance. Jenny asked Ethan to name

categories he thought might be included in a book about chameleons (lines 5 and 6). He

had successfully named one category (line 10), and was now moving on to name others.

His confidence was boosted by the first successful response, and he provided another

response (line 18) without hesitation. The physical move of looking up at Jenny for

confirmation of his response was used when Ethan was unsure of his response. Although

Ethan was willing to attempt the tasks Jenny gave to him, he was not always confident

that he would be successful. After Ethan attempted the response for the second time,

accompanied by a second confirmatory glance at Jenny, his confidence faltered, and the

struggle to be successful at the task began. Ethan’s downcast eyes were a physical move

he used whenever struggle set in. Jenny had a specific answer in mind during this

interaction (“how they look”), and her questions were designed to lead Ethan to that

response. Although Ethan came close to the desired response (“colors” in line 44), Jenny

wanted him to name a larger category (lines 19, 69-71, 75), so she posed questions that

would lead him to that answer. Ethan’s willingness to attempt tasks given to him despite

their difficulty level indexed his positive literate identity. In his attempts, his literate

identity was challenged by the struggles he faced to be successful.

Coping

As mentioned previously, Ethan used coping comments to normalize and project his struggle to read. Coping comments were accompanied by physical actions that were characteristic of Ethan’s struggle. As Jenny attempted to scaffold his learning, the smile

146

which he seemed to permanently wear on his face faded and he made eye contact with

Jenny as she spoke (lines 18 and 22). He closed his eyes as he thought through his response, smiling to himself (line 32). Smiling, in this case, was a coping behavior used by Ethan. Coping comments were accompanied by coping behaviors such as smiling, tapping his hands on his knee (lines 28 and 55), putting his hands to his head (lines 31 and 32), or squinting and closing his eyes (lines 31, 32, 41, 45). These were all visual representations provided by Ethan of the struggle occurring in his head. The smile represented Ethan’s attempts to project the error, as it was accompanied by a coping comment that did the same, “Um, why won’t you come out?” (line 35). This comment projected the struggle away from Ethan and on to the word itself that he had difficulty formulating. Ethan made another attempt at responding to Jenny’s scaffolding questions

(line 36), that was unsuccessful and another set of coping comments and behaviors ensued.

Coping comments indicated that Ethan was thinking about his responses, but needed Jenny’s guidance to be successful. In lines 23 and 24, Jenny asks Ethan, “Do you know any parts to the word you’re thinking of?” a comment posed to guide Ethan’s thinking. Coping comments revealed Ethan’s thinking processes at the point of difficulty and were used to cope with the struggles that challenged his positive literate identity.

Depending

This entire interaction was predicated around one response, the naming of a category to be included on the expectation grid for the book about chameleons. The struggle to cope with naming an acceptable category exhausted Ethan, as evidenced by the change in his physical and verbal behaviors. His eyes remained downcast or closed,

147

except for confirmatory glances at Jenny when he attempted a response. As soon as he

realized these responses were incorrect, he looked down again. The positioning of

Ethan’s eyes throughout this interaction is critical because it was an action that Ethan used to indicate the struggles he found in maintaining a positive view of himself as a reader at the point of difficulty. Ethan looked up at Jenny for confirmation of responses he was not sure of, but immediately looked down when he knew they were not correct.

As in the case of his response, “Differences?” (line 49), when he looked up at Jenny, her facial expression showed him that his response was incorrect, and by the time the response was fully completed, he was looking downward once again. Ethan’s looks at

Jenny were used to refine his views of himself as a good reader, and his frustration at not being able to produce the correct response is evident through the positioning of his eyes.

This frustration, coupled with the dependence he had on Jenny to produce an appropriate response, challenged Ethan’s positive view of himself as a reader.

Resolving

In this interaction, Ethan was able to resolve the struggle he was having not only with producing a response, but also with the struggle he had between his perceived views of himself as a good reader and the lived one as someone who struggles with reading tasks. Jenny’s use of scaffolding in this interaction allowed this to occur, as she led him through a set of responses in which he was able to be successful, “Eyesight” (line 57) and

“Um, see?” (line 59). Even when he provided the acceptable response, Ethan still demonstrated uncertainty, as evidenced by his downcast eyes. Using Jenny’s reaction to this response as a gauge, Ethan slowly broke out in a smile (line 65), realizing he had provided the response to which she was leading him. His entire physical demeanor

148

changed as he lifted his eyes to make eye contact with Jenny and sits up in his chair (line

67). His response, “Yeah, I/” (line 74) was an attempt to explain his thought process to

Jenny, but she interrupted him to move the lesson forward. She was satisfied that he had produced the acceptable response, and communicated to him that he did not need to justify it further.

Collectively, these themes reveal how Ethan was able to strengthen his literate identity through this interaction. In attempting responses and resolving his struggle,

Ethan was able to confirm and strengthen his positive literate identity. In coping with his struggle and depending on Jenny’s guidance, Ethan was challenged to refine his positive literate identity to include his ability to cope with struggle. For Ethan, struggles did not weaken his already positive identity, but rather caused him to feel even more confident about his abilities as a reader, as indicated by his verbal and nonverbal responses throughout the interaction.

Summary

The sections above have described Ethan, Jenny, their tutoring sessions, their interactions, and the shifts in Ethan’s literate identity. Ethan was a student who had a positive view of himself as a reader. Through the interactions with Jenny, he was able to maintain this view by using coping behaviors to deal with his struggles to read. Jenny approached instruction from a balanced perspective, and used revoicing, teaching word analysis, teaching the use of background knowledge, and probing questions to assist

Ethan in improving as a reader. The next section will discuss the dyad of Annie and

Maggie.

149

Annie and Maggie

In the following sections, the dyad of Annie and Maggie will be described. First,

I will provide a discussion of Maggie, the student, as a reader. Second, I will describe the

perspective of Annie, the teacher, on the assessment, evaluation, and instruction of

struggling readers. I will then provide a description of the structure of this dyad’s

tutoring sessions. Next, I will discuss the types of teacher-student interactions that

occurred within the tutoring sessions between Annie and Maggie. Finally, I will discuss

the identity shifts that occurred in Maggie through the interactions.

Maggie

Maggie was entering third grade during the summer in which the study took

place, making her the youngest student in the study. Maggie was described by Annie, her

teacher, as a “little diva” (Interview #1, 6/14/06). Maggie was very social and involved

in many activities outside of school, such as sports and dance. Over the summer, she

attended several day camps which affected the days on which the tutoring could occur.

Annie had been employed as a babysitter for Maggie and her two siblings for several

years, and babysat the children throughout the course of this study. This affected the

relationship between Annie and Maggie, in that they knew each other well in a situation

outside of school.

As the oldest child with two brothers, Maggie used reading as a way to compete.

During the time that this study took place, the library in Maggie’s town was holding a summer reading program. For this program, children were given reading logs on which they could record how many books they had read, or how many minutes they had read each day. Maggie placed a high priority on completing this log and turning it in for the

150

prizes promised to her, before either of her brothers. Maggie repeatedly asked if she and

Annie would be reading the whole book, and if so, she asked if she would be able to write it down on her log.

Maggie 1 Are we gonna read this whole book, because I want 2 to write it down on the log? Annie 3 Yeah, we can write it down on the log. It's good 4 practice, too, I really notice you using the question 5 marks and exclamation marks as you read. Session #3, 6/26/06

This was a source of frustration for Annie, who continually tried to redirect Maggie to

other reasons for reading, such as improving skills or enjoying the books, as in lines 4

and 5 in the transcript above. Annie’s frustration is exhibited in the following transcript,

particularly in lines, 3, 5, and 6. In lines 8-11 and lines 13 and 14, Annie redirects

Maggie’s focus to the purpose of their tutoring sessions, and Maggie is initially reluctant

(lines 4, 7, 12), but in th e end agrees with no resistance (line 15).

Maggie 1 Ok, are we gonna finish this whole book of 2 poems? Annie 3 Noooo…. Maggie 4 That's what I thought. Annie 5 Yeah, well, Maggie remember we're not just 6 reading to write things on our list. Maggie 7 Yeah Annie 8 But, we'll read plenty and tomorrow you'll have 9 some, but today we need to focus more on 10 fluency and things instead of just trying to finish 11 the book, OK? Maggie 12 OK…. Annie 13 So, keep your focus maybe on what we're 14 reading today n ot on th e libr ary thing, OK? Maggie 15 OK! (cheerily) Session #3, 6/26/06

Annie tried to impart to Maggie a motivation for reading that was not connected to

competing with her brothers, but rather was brought on by a desire to improve as a 151

reader. The brother closest in age to Maggie was only one year younger, so Maggie felt a great deal of pressure to excel in comparison to him.

And I think one thing with Maggie, the younger brother, who's just a year younger

in 1st grade is very strong academically, I worked with both of them, and he

surpasses her in everything, fluency, word recognition, comprehension, and I

think that's kind of frustrating for Maggie. And she even mentioned it when we

were talking today, I asked her who she thought a good reader was, and she said

her mom, dad, and her younger brother. So, I'm sure that's hard and something

she's dealing with, too.

Interview #1, 6/14/06

Annie was aware that the pressure on Maggie was influencing how she saw herself as a

reader. Maggie also referred to her brother’s reading abilities in her interviews, noting

that he was someone she viewed as a “good reader” (Interview data).

Another arena in which Maggie competed for status as a reader was with her

peers. Although she was the youngest participant in the study, Maggie also showed more

concern with her position in relation to her peers than the other participants.

I would say I’m pretty good [at reading] but not the best, like I’ve seen better.

Interview #2, 7/24/06

The above statement reflects her awareness that she was not the best reader in her class.

Inclusion in her peer group was very important to Maggie, however, and she was sure to

state that her reading abilities did not affect her status as a member of her primary peer

group, the girls in her class. Lines 4-8 below include Maggie’s response to Annie’s

152

question regarding how friends would describe Maggie as a reader. Maggie refers to

“lots of girls in our class” as being good readers, with her being among them.

Annie 1 How would your friends describe you as a reader? 2 If someone said how do you think Maggie reads? 3 What would they say? Maggie 4 That I, they'd say that we are all really good 5 readers and we all keep trying and they wouldn't 6 just say that about me, they'd say that about lots 7 and lots of friends, because they'd think probably 8 lots of girls in our class are really good readers. Interview #1, 6/14/06

Maggie entered into this study with a positive view of herself as a reader, and she shied away from any indication otherwise. Throughout the course of this study, Maggie’s confidence increased. When asked who she thought the good readers in her class were in the fall interview (10/6/06), Maggie asked tentatively, “Am I allowed to say me?” to which Annie responded “Sure!” Like Ethan, Maggie acknowledged that improvement was a part of her reading, but unlike Ethan this was not part of her literate identity.

Improvement was a value she shared in the first two interviews that others, her parents, her teachers, her friends, had for her reading, but not one that she had for herself. For example, in the following transcript, Maggie refers to her teachers, both Annie and her teacher from the previous school year, in line 4. She states that they would acknowledge her need to improve. Consistent with Maggie’s habit of communicating a positive view of her reading, Maggie follows up this admission with a comment that her teachers already think she is doing well as a reader.

Annie 1 Think back to Mrs. Heath, or me, working with you 2 this summer, what would they say about you as a 3 reader? Maggie 4 You could do better, but, you do really good Annie 5 What would they say you could do better on?

153

Maggie 6 Um, like if there's hard words in a row maybe you 7 could like um look at them before you say them, and 8 I've kind of done that these past weeks. Interview 2, 7/24/06

In the final interview, which occurred in the fall, Maggie did not refer to improvement as a value for her reading at all. Her comments about how she described herself as a reader and how others would describe her as a reader were kept to her strengths.

Maggie possessed a fragile confidence that defined her literate identity. Maggie

communicated confidence as a reader; however, when faced with difficulty in a reading

situation, Maggie’s confidence faltered, and she depended on Annie’s assistance. In the

following transcript, Maggie is writing a summary of a book about horses they had just

read. She had a great deal of difficulty structuring the paragraph, so in the two

interactions below, Annie was assisting Maggie with the task. In both interactions, Annie

attempts to model and guide Maggie to the correct answer, but Maggie is unsure of what to do. Maggie’s responses, in lines 5, 10, and 11, are avoidances of the fact that she does not know the answers. Her responses are a way to communicate that her hesitation is not a result of a lack of knowledge, but rather a desire to choose the best response. Maggie did not understand the task, as evidenced by her need for significant modeling from

Annie in order to complete it (Session #8; Lesson plan #8 reflection).

Annie 1 So if I was going to write my paragraph, I'm going to 2 write a general sentence about snakes, so I am going to 3 use snakes are fascinating animals. Can you think of 4 something that you might write in general about horses? Maggie 5 Um…..I'm trying to think of a really, really good one. Session #8, 7/21/06

Annie 6 Ok, if we're going to write smart then we have to write 7 about all the things that they do that are smart. Can you 8 think of something that's even broader? You can even

154

9 use an adjective. Maggie 10 Um, I'm trying to think of something that is really, 11 really good. Annie 12 Ok, try like amazing or wonderful, or…. Session #8, 7/21/06

A critical aspect to the fragility of Maggie’s confidence was that she was also

very impressionable as a reader. In the transcript below, Maggie described her reading

strengths as breaking words apart in lines 3-6, which was met with enthusiasm and praise

by Annie in lines 7-9. Maggie then referred, in lines 14 and 15, to breaking words apart

as something she would also like to continue to work on. Maggie depended on the praise

and approval of Annie to feel confident about her reading abilities.

Annie 1 Ok, when you think about your reading, what do you do 2 well, what are your strengths? Maggie 3 Um…..like…..if there was a hard word, I would go and 4 split it up, I would think about it for a couple minutes 5 and I would see if I knew it and if I had seen the page 6 before and I would….[Demonstrates with her finger.] Annie 7 And I noticed that too when you were doing Reader's 8 Theatre [today], you were breaking words apart and 9 that's a GREAT strategy to use. Annie 10 What do you think you could work on to make you 11 better? Maggie 12 Um, maybe reading the book one time for practice and 13 then reading it again so you know the words and you 14 don't mess up. Um, and splitting the words in parts still, 15 like that's my main thing. Interview #2, 7/24/06

In addition, Maggie’s descriptions of herself as a reader changed from the summer to the fall, once she was back in school. Table 4.5 below compares Maggie’s responses from each of the interviews to the question, “What do you do well as a reader?”

155

Interview #1 Um, when I start out reading a book, I go fast, but when I get all 6/14/06 nervous, I kind of go a little slow, because people around me are reading, and I kind of get a little nervous. Interview #2 Um, some things but not everything. I don't really know. 7/24/06 Everything, but I could probably be better. Interview #3 Um, the words, make sure the words are there, and um making 10/6/06 sure that if um like if somebody um like is reading with you, they needed a little bit of help with the word and you both need it, maybe we can get together and think of it together, like do it together and try to work it out. Sometimes I would skip over it and see what the sentence is like and then figure it out.

Table 4.5: Maggie’s descriptions of what she does well as a reader.

Maggie was able to articulate ways in which the summer tutoring had helped her to

improve her comprehension and word identification skills. At the end of the tutoring

sessions, Maggie’s literate identity had not changed significantly, but as the above

discussion has displayed, she was gaining confidence in her abilities as she internalized

what she had learned when working with Annie.

Annie

A struggling reader can involve a variety of things. A struggling reader may have

trouble with word attack skills. Or a struggling reader may have trouble with

comprehension skills. A struggling reader has a difficult time working through

the text or a struggling reader may fluently read every line but not be able to tell

you about anything he/she has read.

Written reflection, 5/15/06

Annie’s definition of a struggling reader was reflected in her choice to tutor Maggie over the summer. Annie noticed that Maggie would read a text aloud but then have “no idea”

156

how to respond to questions asked of her following the reading (Interview #1, 6/14/06).

Annie based her decisions about struggling readers on their abilities to perform academic

tasks, such as responding to questions or reading aloud fluently. Annie believed that a

hallmark of a struggling reader is a lack of comprehension skills. “I think mainly what I have focused on is the comprehension when they can’t talk about what they’re reading”

(Interview #2, 7/24/06).

Annie’s view that a lack of comprehension caused students to struggle was reflected in her views of the assessment of struggling readers. When presented with the statement, “Successful readers are those that do well on standardized tests,” during the first interview, Annie said,

I think that strong readers have an advantage to those struggling because you

know they may be focusing on one word trying to figure that out and that could

throw them off in the different sections and it takes longer.

Interview #1, 6/14/06

Annie felt that a lack of decoding skills affected comprehension of test passages, and

therefore caused struggling readers to not perform as well on standardized tests. Annie

valued informal assessment as a means of understanding individual students’ abilities in

reading.

I really think assessment informs instruction, and I think you know we do more

informal assessment at Immaculate, like I said were not required to do anything

specific, but I really think this year with the one-to-one conferences with the kids

and working with the small groups really made a difference because instead of

just teaching and going down the list of the objectives we need to teach that year

157

you know when to teach, who to teach, who needs extra help, and I think the kids

really get a better education and more support, if you know exactly what their

needs are.

Interview #1, 6/14/06

Annie valued the results of the Qualitative Reading Inventory-IV (Leslie & Caldwell,

2005), as she felt that it covered all the essential components of reading: comprehension, word identification and fluency (Interview #1). Annie also stated that using reading conferences in her classroom as a form of assessment allowed her to get to know her students as readers on a deeper level and gain an “overall reflection of what they were doing” (Interview #1). For Annie, then, assessment was a way to get to know students as readers in order to inform instruction.

Annie felt that evaluation of students’ performances should be shared with them,

but that consideration should be taken in how the results are shared.

I think, when I was working with Maggie, you know she wanted to know, and she

knew when she didn't get a word right or didn't spell a word right, and she'd get

very frustrated, and I think if they're improving their results are encouraging and

that can really boost their motivation to read and their self-confidence, but you

know if they do poorly, I think that could really frustrate a reader and turn into

the brittle learner…I think a lot of it is the teacher's attitude, too, you know how

they present the results to the students. Because you can have the teacher that,

not that they're mean, but you know, just very straightforward, where you have

another teacher who might be a little more bubbly, and you know, help the student

158

understand that what they did do, they're making progress, but again, if they're

not making progress it may be more difficult, you know, and that might

discourage them. Interview #1, 6/14/06

This view of evaluation of struggling readers was in line with her value of assessments

that allowed her to get to know students as readers on a deeper level than allowed by a

standardized assessment. Annie viewed evaluation as a process that should be rooted in a

positive relationship between teacher and student.

Annie based her instructional decisions when working with Maggie on their

relation to the academic tasks she would be asked to perform in school. One of Annie’s

goals for Maggie was increased confidence in reading aloud, and this was tied to the tasks

she would be asked to perform in third grade. In addition, Annie wanted Maggie to become more familiar with expository texts, and her instruction focused on providing her with tools to comprehend this type of text. In the first interview, Annie discussed the goals she had for Maggie over the summer in relation to what she would be required to do the following school year in third grade.

I hope she has more confidence, and I really want her to work on her

comprehension, and be able to, because third grade can be that transition year

where we start more with the content area reading, the science, social studies

books, we refer to, we try to do more hands on, they are required to learn how to

use them, because in fourth grade they are pretty dependent on them… I really

want to see her develop better comprehension skills and strategies to use to

comprehend those expository texts so that when she does come into third grade

she knows how to use them, and I would like to teach her the different elements of

159

them, too, I think that's what we spend a lot of time with the beginning of third

grade is how to read the different content area texts, and so, I want to be able to

point those out to her.

Interview #1, 6/14/06

Annie chose books and activities that related to Maggie’s prior knowledge, but she

mentioned that this was only to get her involved in the task, and that the ultimate goal

was increased confidence in performing third grade reading tasks. Annie’s view of the

instruction of struggling readers related to success within the grade level classroom.

Annie had been teaching third grade for 4 years in a suburban Catholic elementary school. The elementary school in which she teaches is located in an affluent area and is well connected to the university, hosting student teachers and student observers on a regular basis. As an undergraduate student, she received a bachelor’s degree in early childhood education from the same university in which she was enrolled for her master’s degree in literacy. She believed that reading “can be as simple as decoding text, to reading for meaning, understanding what you’re reading, enjoyment…it’s part of learning, putting words together to form ideas and thoughts, and to kind of extend your thinking, you’re reading something written but you can go off of that, too” (Interview #2, 7/24/06).

Annie and Maggie’s Tutoring Sessions

Since Annie was Maggie’s babysitter during the summers and after school, the two knew each other quite well. During tutoring sessions, however, this relationship was rarely acknowledged. On two occasions, when the books they were reading made references to experiences they had had together, their relationship outside of the tutoring

160

was acknowledged, but otherwise the sessions were appropriate for a student and teacher

relationship. Annie had arranged for them to meet at the parish center connected to the

school at the same times as Jenny and Ethan. On three occasions, they met at the public

library because the parish center was closed (Field notes).

Annie structured her tutoring sessions around the Literacy Lesson Framework,

and was sure to cover each of the elements in all of her lessons. Following the first

session, Annie asked me if it would be appropriate to change the order of the elements to

better fit Maggie’s needs, to which I responded yes (Field notes, 6/19/06). The structure

of the Framework was important to Annie and she tried to follow it carefully in all of her

lessons. Maggie often grew tired during the sessions (Field notes), and Annie inserted

frequent breaks into the lessons to keep her attention. Annie commented that Maggie’s parents became frustrated with Maggie because she seemed tired during her oral reading, and observations of Annie during the sessions, as well as statements included in her lesson plan reflections indicated that she felt the same way. To combat this, Annie utilized breaks and frequent changes in activity to keep Maggie’s attention on the lesson.

Types of Teacher-Student Interactions

As was discussed in chapter 3, two broad categories of teacher-student

interactions emerged from the analysis of the data, those that occurred at the point of

difficulty and use of questions. Interactions that occurred at the point of difficulty also

included the subcategories of scaffolding instruction and teaching reading strategies. I found data in Annie’s sessions to support her use of modeling as an instructional scaffold, noticing as an instructional scaffold, use of context clues as a reading strategy, and the

161

use of background knowledge as a reading strategy. Included under the use of questions were also several subcategories of questions. Annie’s use of these categories of questions is discussed in a section below.

Modeling as an Instructional Scaffold

Examples of modeling were found on seven occasions within the transcripts of

Annie’s sessions, which was more than any of the other teachers. The following transcript from one of Annie’s sessions will demonstrate the use of modeling to scaffold instruction. Annie and Maggie were completing an anticipation guide prior to the reading of Princesses are not Quitters (Liem & Hellard, 2005). In lines 1 and 2, Annie told

Maggie that she would be modeling how to complete the anticipation guide. As she read each statement (lines 3 and 6), Annie modeled her thinking processes by verbalizing them for Annie. In line 4, Annie modeled the use of her background knowledge to help her make a guess. In lines 7 and 8, Annie modeled her use of the information from the book to make a guess regarding the truthfulness of the statement. Annie then handed the process over to Maggie in lines 10-12.

Annie 1 So, just as a refresher I put two up here in pink that I’m going to 2 do just to remind us how to do it. And I’m going to do them. Text 3 Annie 4 I’m going to say, it kind of sounds like princesses’ names, so I’m 5 going to say yes, I think that could happen. Text 6 Annie 7 Well I’m going to look at the title, and it says Princesses are not 8 Quitters, so I’m going to say yes, princesses are not quitters. I 9 believe that the princesses won’t be quitters in the story. 10 So, I have the rest of them that I’m going to have you do, so if 11 you just want to take a guess, yes that’s going to happen or no it 12 won’t be part of the story. Session #5, 7/3/06

162

This was the second occasion on which Annie and Maggie had completed an anticipation

guide, so Annie had based her decision to model the process on Maggie’s performance

during the previous session. Her reflection from the first session in which the anticipation

guide was used reveals why she chose to model the activity in the following session.

I tried my best to explain the task. I am not sure if I put enough stress on the fact

that I was not looking for a right or wrong answer…The task was simple;

however, since this activity was new to her, I might model this using the first page

or two of a different book and pull statements from that I would complete using

the anticipation guide, following the whole process.

Lesson #2 Reflection, 6/21/06

Annie wanted Maggie to understand that it was not important if her answers were right or wrong before the story was read, but that she should model her predictions after those

Annie demonstrated, to help her make educated guesses about the statements. Maggie struggled to let go of this, and her desire to have all the statements correct hindered her ability to use the anticipation guide effectively. Annie’s purpose in using modeling in this situation, therefore, was to not only model the process of completing an anticipation guide, but to also show Maggie how being right or wrong was not important. In the following transcript, Annie and Maggie began reading the book, and came upon information that related to one of the statements Annie had modeled for Maggie.

Annie 1 What are you thinking now? They are smiling. Maggie 2 You were wrong! Maggie gets a big smile! Annie 3 I was wrong, wasn’t I? I thought those were 4 good princess names, but now I know, that’s 5 their names! Session #5, 7/3/06

163

In line 1, Annie draws Maggie’s attention to the information they just read. As indicated

by the physical notes in the right column, however, Maggie had already noticed the information on her own. Her smile indicated that she had seen the information and had noticed that her teacher had been wrong, as she stated in line 2. By saying, “I was wrong, wasn’t I?” in line 3, Annie communicates to Maggie that being wrong is acceptable, and furthers this statement by saying, “now I know” in line 4, emphasizing the importance of reading to confirm or reject initial thoughts about the text.

Interactions that involved modeling were found on 10 different occasions

throughout Annie’s lessons. Annie relied upon modeling when Maggie reached a point

of difficulty. For example, following a lesson in which the focus was on fluency, Annie

commented,

In the middle of the lesson, I decided to change my approach. I decided what we

were doing wasn’t working anymore. I changed it up so that I would read a stanza, and then Maggie would immediately read the same one after me.

Lesson #3 reflection, 6/26/06

During this lesson, Maggie was not performing the tasks in the manner that Annie had expected of her. Annie wanted Maggie to first whisper read the text to herself several times, and then read the text aloud independently, but Maggie was not able to whisper read to herself. She either did not understand the task or did not wish to complete it.

Either way, Annie decided that a different approach was needed in order for Maggie to be successful at practicing reading fluently during this lesson. Just as in the lesson involving the anticipation guide discussed above, modeling was employed when Annie noticed that

Maggie had encountered some difficulty. The lesson that Annie completed with the

164

anticipation guide was the second in her series of Teaching-Learning Instrument

iterations. The third and final lesson in the series also involved an anticipation guide, but did not involve modeling. Once Annie felt that Maggie had been successful with the use of the anticipation guide, she removed the scaffold of modeling. Using modeling at the point of difficulty had proved successful, as is illustrated by the following excerpt from

Annie’s reflection,

The modeling provided a chance to show Maggie what I was thinking as I was

making and correcting my predictions. Maggie seemed to follow my lead throughout the

lesson. She explained her predictions (towards the end she needed a little prompting),

and she corrected her predictions after we read the story.

Lesson #5 reflection, 7/3/06

Annie was able to use modeling to effectively scaffold her instruction to assist Maggie in understanding the task.

Noticing as an Instructional Scaffold

To encourage the use of the reading strategies Maggie had been taught to use,

Annie would verbally notice Maggie’s correct use of them. She did this to point out

Maggie’s accomplishments and to increase her confidence in her abilities as a reader.

This was consistent with the goal Annie had for Maggie,

My hope is that Maggie will enter third grade feeling more confident about

comprehending fiction and non-fiction text. I really wanted Maggie to leave the

tutoring sessions with the knowledge and confidence to read and understand both

165

fiction and non-fiction. Non-fiction becomes more prominent in third grade, and I

want her to understand this text set-up and feel comfortable using different

strategies to help her comprehend the text.

Lesson # 6 reflection, 7/5/06

Noticing was used to build Maggie’s confidence in comprehending fiction and non-fiction text. When Maggie was interviewed at the end of the tutoring sessions and again in the fall, her ability to articulate her skills as a reader had increased (Interview #2,

7/24/06; Interview #3, 10/9/06). Annie’s noticing comments are summarized below.

Session #4 You know what I noticed you doing on this page? Working on what we 6/28/06 practiced last week, reading the question and exclamation marks a little bit differently. Session #6 Oh, I noticed you going to the Table of Contents! Where do you think 7/5/06 that might be found? Session #7a I noticed you figured out leotard. Sometimes by just looking at the 7/20/06 picture or thinking about things you already know, you can figure out some words. Session #7b I noticed as you were reading that you were looking at the pictures and 7/20/06 the captions, which is great about a nonfiction book, there's all these pictures and captions, there's always so much to look at and think about. Session #8a That's very nice here. I noticed that when you skipped a word, you went 7/21/06 back and reread it, that's very good. Session #8b And what you did here, I noticed you went back. After you read the rest 7/21/06 of your sentence, sometime the word makes sense.

Table 4.6: Annie’s noticing comments.

One of Annie’s comments noticed her use of fluency strategies, in Session #4. The remaining five comments related to Maggie’s use of reading comprehension strategies, which included use of decoding strategies (Session #7a), use of text conventions (Session

166

#6, Session #7b), and rereading (Session #8a, Session #8b). Annie believed that comprehension was influenced by fluency, so by noticing Maggie’s use of both of these strategies, Annie was contributing to her goal of increasing Maggie’s confidence as a reader by improving her comprehension and her fluency simultaneously.

I will now share an extended transcript of one of the interactions that involved the noticing comments discussed to illustrate the context in which Annie employed them.

This interaction is representative of Annie’s use of both noticing and explaining because it involves discussion about both reading comprehension strategies (lines 12, 13, and 15) and fluency strategies (lines 7-10). In this interaction, Maggie had been reading a book out loud for 12 minutes, when she encountered points of difficulty. The book she was reading was Double Pink (Feiffer & Ingman, 2005). I had brought this book with me to the tutoring session that day because it was a book I had come across coincidentally that reminded me of Maggie. It matched her interest in the color pink, and it also used her name throughout the book. I handed it to Annie before the lesson started, mentioning that she was welcome to use it as a read aloud in an upcoming lesson if she chose. She handed the book to Maggie and asked her to read it for the familiar reading portion of the lesson, despite the fact that is was not a book with which Maggie was familiar. The book was beyond Maggie’s independent reading level, the level at which she should have been reading during familiar reading, and she had never seen it before. The book’s difficulty was reflected in Maggie’s tired voice and her physical actions of hunching her body over the book and putting her head in her hands. Annie stopped Maggie to ask her if she was

167

enjoying the book, and Maggie indicated that she did and wanted to read the whole book.

Annie perceived that Maggie was struggling, however, and used noticing and explaining

to assist her in moving forward.

Annie 1 Assuredly, that’s not a word you’ve probably maybe even read before. 2 But she is saying, have you ever heard anyone say, “Oh, I assure you I 3 will be there”? Maggie 4 I think. Annie 5 You think? So, that’s what it means when she’s saying it, oh now I see 6 you, so she’s assuring her daughter that she knows that, that’s her. Maggie 7 But instead of picking up Madison, she picked up the pink * Madison 8 jumped up, hopping to the left and twirling to the right. All I see is 9 pink, --- her mother. Annie 10 That’s another tricky word. Lamented her mother. You know what I 11 noticed you doing on this page? Working on what we practiced last 12 week, reading the question and exclamation marks a little bit 13 differently. 14 [Discussion about the pictures in the book. 1 minute] Maggie 15 Madison g..r..eat for a patch of purple… SEARCHED! Annie 16 OH good, did you notice that didn’t make sense after you read the end 17 of the sentence? Maggie 18 Yeah Annie 19 Oh good, that’s a good strategy to use. Elapsed time: 2 minutes, 9 seconds Session #4, 6/28/06

Within this 2 minute and 9 second segment, Maggie encountered three points of

difficulty, prior to line 1, at line 9 and at line 15. During the second point of difficulty, at line 9, Annie noticed what Maggie had done well (lines 10-14). Annie did this because, as she noted in her reflection following the lesson,

I think that once she misses a word or two she becomes anxious about her reading. She starts to read faster and makes more mistakes.

Lesson #4 reflection, 6/28/06

Annie wanted Maggie to feel more confident as a reader, but she had asked her to read a book that was beyond her instructional level. Maggie enjoyed the story; therefore, when

168

Annie noticed her confidence was faltering, she pointed out the things she had done well,

as in lines 10-14 above. Annie also wanted Maggie to improve her comprehension

abilities, so she used noticing in lines 16 and 17 to point out her successful use of rereading to monitor her comprehension.

Teaching the Use of Context Clues as a Reading Strategy

Annie taught Maggie to use context clues as a way to monitor and confirm her

comprehension as she read connected text. Annie stated that her biggest area of concern

for Maggie was in the area of comprehension.

I talked to the teacher, the second grade teacher, and she said she's one of those

kids that's right there on the bubble where she doesn't really qualify for services,

but definitely needs additional help, and mainly with comprehension, which I saw

when I was working with her, and again in the passages that we've been doing,

that's definitely an area of weakness for her.

Interview #1, 6/14/06

Annie taught Maggie to use context clues to quickly get at the meaning of the word so

that she could move ahead with her reading.

Maggie 1 Every few….. Annie 2 Well, read the rest of the sentence and see if you can figure it out. Maggie 3 Every few……hours! Annie 4 There you go! That’s another good strategy to use, when you’re stuck on 5 a word, read the rest of the sentence to figure it out. Session #8, 7/21/06

In this interaction, Maggie approached a word that she did not know (line 1), and Annie

recommended that she read ahead (line 2) to use the context clues. This was successful

for Maggie (line 3), and Annie praised her for using it (line 4) and pointed out its utility

169

for other situations (line 5). In the section of her case report that included suggestions for

continued support beyond the summer tutoring, submitted at the end of the tutoring

sessions, Annie commented,

She also needs to be encouraged to skip the word if she can’t get it and read the rest of the sentence to figure out the word or its meaning. She often wants to simply skip

over it without figuring it out. She needs to be encouraged to reread sentences or words

she doesn’t understand.

Annie’s Case Report, p.10

During the tutoring sessions, context clues had been introduced to Maggie for solving

unknown words, and she had learned to use them with guidance during the tutoring

sessions, but it was not a method that she would independently identify as a way to figure

out words. When Maggie was interviewed in the fall, she commented that one of her

strengths as a reader was monitoring her reading by looking carefully at individual words

to read them correctly.

I make sure that I look at the words, I don’t just say then if it’s than.

Interview #3, 10/9/06

Maggie also said that the good readers in her class, among whom she counted herself, did

not necessarily use context clues to solve unknown words, but analyzed them at the word

level.

They make sure they look at the words and try to figure it out if they don’t know it,

and if they do know it they just keep going past it.

Interview #3, 10/9/06

170

Maggie’s third grade teacher felt that one of her strengths was in rereading material to correct errors or misunderstandings in her reading (Interview, 10/9/06). Rereading material to clarify understanding shows that Maggie was using context clues to solve words in her reading, although she did not readily identify this herself. These observations are indications that Maggie had continued to practice and appropriate the use of context clues, which Annie had taught her during the summer.

Teaching the Use of Background Knowledge as a Reading Strategy

Annie also taught Maggie to use background knowledge to help her figure out the meaning of unknown words. In the following interaction, Maggie was reading a book about soccer for the familiar reading portion of the lesson. Soccer was a topic Maggie knew well, which was why Annie had chosen the book for Maggie to read.

Maggie 1 Your cot has you and your team….c…. Annie 2 Who would be in charge of your team? Maggie 3 Coach Annie 4 Uh huh Maggie 5 Your coach has your team start…strut your muscles? Annie 6 What do you think you do? Maggie 7 Stretch Annie 8 There you go! Maggie 9 Stretching is very important. You will be running a lot and you want 10 your muscles to be nice and warm. Annie 11 You read the rest of your sentence, sometimes that word that you 12 didn’t know seems to make sense once you read the clues. Session #8, 7/21/06

Annie monitors Maggie’s use of background knowledge throughout this interaction. This interaction includes the use of context clues, but the successful use of these context clues is dependent upon Maggie’s background knowledge about soccer. Annie’s questions in lines 2 and 6 are specific to both the text being read and to the topic of soccer. Without background knowledge about coaches and stretching, Maggie would not have been able 171

to accurately respond to Annie’s questions, even if she had relied on context clues alone.

However, without the context clues that provided a contextualization for the use of the terms coach and stretch, Maggie may not have been able to figure out the correct response, as well. Maggie had to use both her background knowledge and the context clues in concert with one another in order to be successful.

Types of Questions Asked by Annie

Monitoring questions were a tool used by Annie to check Maggie’s comprehension, which was a major goal of Annie’s for Maggie’s success. Annie used monitoring questions more frequently than any of the other teachers in this study to monitor Maggie’s comprehension. The table below summarizes Annie’s use of the question types.

Annie Monitoring 30% Probing 23% Managing 15%

Leading 11% Extending 10%

Connecting 6% Restating 4%

Assisting <1% Clarifying -

Table 4.7: Types of questions asked by Annie.

Annie used two types of monitoring questions in her interactions with Maggie: comprehension monitoring and memory monitoring. An example of each is discussed below.

172

In the following transcript, Annie asked Maggie several monitoring questions. In

line 1, she opens the interaction with a memory monitoring question, because she asks

Maggie if she remembers the name for the heading. In line 6, Maggie responds with a correct answer. Lines 7-10 do not represent a question, but Annie draws Maggie’s attention to a specific point in the text that helped to answer one of the questions she wanted to know the answer to prior to reading the text. As Maggie writes the answer on her chart without responding (line 10), Annie interjects with a comprehension monitoring question. In line 12, Annie reminds Maggie of why it is important to monitor comprehension, and goes on to ask another memory monitoring question in lines 14 and

15, checking that Maggie has internalized the nonfiction conventions they had discussed in a previous lesson. Annie initiates another comprehension monitoring question in lines

19 and 20, by using one of Maggie’s pre-reading questions to further check for her understanding of the word “graze.” Line 21 demonstrates that Maggie is still not sure of the meaning of the word, and in lines 22 and 23, Annie assists Maggie with her understanding of the word.

Annie 1 And that’s what, what do we call that again, do you remember? Maggie 2 I keep forgetting. Annie 3 It starts with an h….the heading.

Maggie 4 Oh I thought you said THAT. Annie 5 No – this. So do you remember why they have the heading? Maggie 6 To tell what it’s going to be about. Annie 7 Good. So, right here it says that the horses graze in the field during the 8 day, so that might answer one of your questions, “What do they do when 9 people aren’t riding them?” 10 [Maggie writes the answer on her chart.] Annie 11 Do you know what it means to graze? Annie 12 Because if we’re writing it down it’s important to know. 173

Maggie 13 Um, maybe to eat. Annie 14 Ok, good, where could you go if you didn’t know? What does a nonfiction 15 book have? Maggie 16 Um, the index. No, not the index, the glossary. Annie 17 Ok good, find graze. What does it mean? Maggie 18 To eat grass in the field. Annie 19 Ok good, does that answer another question too? There you go. So when 20 people don’t feed them where do they go? Maggie 21 Grass….in….the….field Annie 22 Ok, they don’t eat grass…to graze is to eat grass, but where do they eat it, 23 in the? Maggie 24 Field Annie 25 Field, there you go. Session #8, 7/21/06

Annie’s goal for Maggie was increased comprehension, but she also wanted her to be

able to apply the reading comprehension strategies she learned independently. Her use of

memory monitoring questions in this interaction (line 1, 5, 14 and 15) were used to check

Maggie’s internalization of the conventions of nonfiction she had been taught in a

previous lesson. In her evaluation of her lesson plan, Annie reflected,

When we reviewed the different parts of the book she seemed to remember most of

the aspects of a non-fiction book. She forgot the word “heading” but remembered why it

was there.

Lesson #8 reflection, 7/21/06

Annie used monitoring questions to measure Maggie’s progress towards the goals she

had for her, including the use of independent reading strategies.

Literate Identity Shifts and the Teacher-Student Interactions

Like Ethan, Maggie came to the study with a positive view of herself as a reader.

She viewed herself as a good reader and felt that others thought she was a good reader as

well (Interview #1, 6/14/06). Maggie brought with her well established conceptions of

174

reading and its purposes for her. For Maggie, reading was a social activity that she could

use to connect with her friends and the adults in her life. In her interviews, she stated that

she liked to read with her parents, and that she and her friends talked about books that

they had all read (Interview data). She also saw reading as something that should be

done accurately, in terms of decoding words in context. In her first interview, she felt

that good reading was being able to read a lot of words (Interview #1, 6/14/06), and in

her third interview, she said that good reading would be reading all the words quickly and

accurately (Interview #3, 10/9/06). One of Annie’s concerns was that Maggie did not

value comprehension as a part of the reading process, as demonstrated by the above

interview comments. She read books to finish them and to read them accurately.

Competition was one of Maggie’s purposes for reading, as she used reading as a way to

get ahead of her siblings and her peers. When asked how she thought her friends viewed

her as a reader in her interviews, she said on all three occasions that they would see her as

equal to or better than them (Interview data). Annie mentioned that Maggie competed

with her younger brothers in reading, particularly her brother who was just a year

younger than her and a more capable reader (Interview #1, 6/14/06). Throughout the summer, Maggie was focused on writing down books she had read on her summer

reading log for the library, so that she could turn it in before any of her brothers.

Maggie’s identity was a process of figuring out what counted as reading, and how her

own definitions of reading fit, within the tutoring sessions.

The session selected for in-depth analysis was a session that departed from Annie

and Maggie’s typical routine. For example, Annie employed pre-reading comprehension

strategies in her lessons with Maggie six out of the nine times they met. The remaining

175

three sessions, including the one in this analysis, Annie focused on fluency with Maggie,

providing Maggie with guided practice in the improvement of her fluency. Annie’s main

goal for Maggie was improved comprehension, but Annie acknowledged that comprehension and fluency were intricately linked in her second interview (7/24/06), and in her case report.

I also want to assist her with her fluency which I hope will lead to comprehension

through poetry and reader’s theater.

Case report, p. 6

Annie referenced the need for Maggie to develop “reading endurance” (Interview #2,

7/24/06), as she often got tired while reading, and her comprehension and fluency would

both suffer. By developing endurance for reading, Annie felt that Maggie would be able

to be more fluent and therefore comprehend at higher levels. The focus on fluency,

therefore, was not meant to depart from the focus on comprehension, but rather to

enhance it. Since Maggie was engaged in a task that did not overtly focus on

comprehension strategies, analyzing this segment revealed the extent to which her verbal

and nonverbal moves during the lesson reflected her internalization of comprehension as

the purpose of reading. In addition to this goal, the transcript was analyzed for Maggie’s

purposes for reading that had emerged from the initial analysis of the data: social

practice, accuracy, and competition.

The segment selected for microanalysis out of this session included an interaction

surrounding the paired reading of a book, You Read to Me, I’ll Read to You (Hoberman,

2001), designed to be read by two voices. This segment was chosen because it was representative of the dichotomy that existed between Annie’s purposes and Maggie’s

176

purposes for reading. Within the segment, Maggie’s three purposes for reading that had

emerged during the analysis of the session were evident, while Annie also used this

interaction as a way to communicate the purpose she wanted Maggie to gain,

comprehension. This reason, as well as those listed as rationale for the choice of the session above, made me interested in further analyzing the interaction. The transcript of this 23-minute segment selected for in-depth analysis is reproduced below. This segment is longer in length than those analyzed for Matthew and Ethan, because it involved Annie and Maggie in reading aloud from the text, in addition to their interactions. The reading aloud was not transcribed and analyzed, but the interactions between Annie and Maggie are represented below.

Annie 1 Maggie, what we’re going to do today is we’re Maggie looking 2 gonna work on FLUENCY, and fluency is um down, scratching 3 sort of the rate at which you read and how her leg, Annie 4 smooth your reading is and using the trying to get her to 5 exclamation marks and question marks, kind of make eye contact. 6 like we did last week. Um, we’re going to use She looks up at the 7 this book, You Read to Me and I’ll Read to You book, remains 8 kind of to warm up, and um, I’ll try to model looking at the book 9 some good fluency and then you’ll read second as Annie talks. 10 and you’ll do the same thing. And then we’re 11 gonna go on to some poetry and I picked out 12 two poems that we’re gonna work with today 13 and first I’m gonna read them, then we’re 14 gonna read them together, then you’re gonna 15 practice by yourself, so repeated reading often 16 helps with fluency. So, have you ever read this 17 book before, You Read to Me and I’ll Read to 18 You? Maggie 19 No Annie 20 It’s really neat because they’re short stories and Maggie is playing 21 we get to read them together, so what happens with her hair, 22 is um, there’s words, and you have your side leaning on her 23 and I have my side and then there’s the middle, hand. 24 ok, so, we have the introduction, so you read, 25 well, you’re gonna read the blue, and I’ll read

177

26 the red, and together we’ll read the purple, Ok, 27 so.. Maggie 28 Mmm hmmmm Head in hands, wiping eyes. Annie 29 Let’s start together… They start reading. Maggie is leaning on her hand. Maggie reads with expression. Maggie misses her part and when Annie reminds her, she finger points. Maggie 30 I kept thinking the blue was yours! Smiles Annie 31 So, I have the purple, you have the red, the blue They resume 32 is together. reading. Maggie sits up in her chair, leans into the text, her voice is louder and she uses expression. She is not leaning on her hand but is looking at the text. Annie 33 What do you think so far? Maggie 34 Ok… Nods head. Annie 35 It’s kind of hard to get in the rhythm but…Ok, They resume 36 let’s keep reading. reading. Maggie leans on her hand, but reads with expression. She self corrects one error. Her reading has lost expression by the end. Maggie 37 Wait, weren’t you supposed to read that with Big smile 38 me?! Annie 39 You are so good, Ok… They resume reading. Maggie is sitting up again and her reading is full of expression again. She smiles at one line in the story that is funny, 178

giggles. She repeats a phrase when it does not sound right. Annie 40 And what’s the title of this one? Maggie 41 Hope and skip Annie 42 Hop and skip, and I wanted to tell you, you did Maggie does not 43 a very nice job using exclamation marks and respond, leans on 44 question marks, very impressive. her hand. They resume reading. Annie 45 What’s this one titled? Maggie 46 Wait, um, when I put these down on my log, 47 um, Annie 48 No, we’ll have to put the book, just the book. Maggie smiles and nods. Maggie 49 I was thinking… Annie 50 The Snowman – it’s hard to think of a No reaction. 51 snowman right now, isn’t it? They resume reading. Maggie sits up but leans on her hand when the poem gets difficult. Annie 52 And this kind of has a rhyming pattern doesn’t 53 it, like poetry? Maggie 54 Uh huh, and I thought that all of the poetries She looks up at 55 have this at the end, you’ll read to me… Annie. Annie 56 They all end like that, good observation. They resume reading. Sitting up, leaning over the text. Reads with expression. Maggie 57 Are we gonna read this whole book, because I 58 want to write it down on the log? Annie 59 Yeah, we can write it down on the log. It’s She sits up when 60 good practice, too, I really notice you using the Annie tells her yes. 61 question marks and exclamation marks as you 62 read. Maggie 63 “I like…” Maggie jumps right into the reading with no response. They resume reading. She uses her finger when she stumbles on a 179

difficult spot. Her reading is full of expression. Annie 64 That was a fun one. Maggie 65 Yeah, I liked it. Smile. Annie 66 We had to go back and forth pretty quickly No response. 67 didn’t we? They resume reading. Maggie is leaning on her hand and making more mistakes, omitting words and not self correcting. Annie 68 We’ll read a few more and then we’ll move on Maggie stretches, 69 to the poetry. Are you getting tired of doing yawns. 70 this? Maggie 71 No I like it, I want to read the whole thing. Sits up in her seat. Annie 72 You do like it? OK, we’ll do that then. They resume reading. Annie has to finger point a lot more for Maggie, more fidgety, leaning down on the table. Annie 73 Very good Maggie pulls the book slowly over to her, away from the middle of them. Maggie 74 The end Annie 75 I noticed you were definitely working on your 76 fluency here, again with the exclamation marks, 77 and the question marks, that’s an area we’re 78 going to continue working on. Maggie 79 Should I write it down when we’re finished? Annie 80 When we’re finished. Session #3, 6/20/06

Through analysis of this interaction, I found evidence of Maggie playing out her definitions of reading, as well as experimenting with the definition Annie brought to the interaction, comprehension. Themes that represent the definitions of reading at work in the interaction will be described and related to the larger corpus of data below.

180

Reading as a Social Practice

Maggie’s engagement in the reading of this double voiced book was evident throughout the session. Maggie enjoyed reading with other people (Interview #1,

6/14/06), and this was reflected by her eagerness to read the poems during this interaction. Her physical actions also showed her enjoyment of the social nature of the reading by sitting up straight in her seat and smiling. Maggie’s responses that indicate the social nature of reading for her include laughing with Annie over parts of the poems

(line 30), modeling Annie’s expression as she reads (lines 39, 56, 63), and looking at

Annie throughout the reading to ask questions (lines 54 and 55) or share a smile over a point in the story (lines 39 and 65). These verbal and nonverbal responses are in contrast to the surrounding dialogue of the rest of the session (see Appendix C), in which Annie asks her to practice reading two different poems aloud. Reading poems aloud was less social in nature, and Maggie’s engagement in the activity was lessened. She displayed a lot more physical behaviors, including leaning back in her seat, leaning on her hand, and laying her head on the table. Maggie’s engagement in and performance during the lesson were enhanced by the social nature of the reading of the double-voiced book. Through this interaction, Maggie enacted the social purposes she identified as integral parts of her reading life.

In her interviews Maggie recounted instances in which she had talked about books with friends, a social reading act she said she enjoyed. Maggie was also able to describe the reading abilities of other kids in her class, and named herself as part of a group of

“good readers” in her class (Interview #3, 10/6/06). She stated, “I like to read with other people” (Interview #1, 6/14/06). Annie identified reading for social purposes as a

181

dominant definition to which Maggie subscribed (Interview #1, 6/14/06). As evidenced by the above microanalysis, this definition of reading as a social practice played out in

the lessons through the verbal and nonverbal reactions of Maggie to social and

independent reading situations. When the reading task was independent, such as when

Maggie was asked to read aloud independently, she grew tired and her reading became

more laborious (Annie Interview #2, 7/24/06). When the reading task was socially

completed, such as in Session #2 when Annie partner read with Maggie, her reading was

expressive and she remained engaged with the book. For Maggie, reading had a social

dimension that influenced the ways in which she engaged with reading tasks.

Accuracy

From the time Annie began assessing Maggie’s reading skills, she noticed that

Maggie’s strengths were in decoding words accurately (Interview #1, 6/14/06). She also

noticed a lack of comprehension. Annie first noticed this when she began to work with

her, and commented during the first interview that Maggie did not construct meaning

when she read a text, despite the fact that it was about a topic in which she was interested.

Maggie read the words accurately, but did not understand what she had read.

In the spring, she was reading to me, and I was asking her questions

about what she was reading, and no idea, and I mean, she would finish a

page and I would ask her a question about what was happening, what she had

read could mean, and I mean, it was a topic of interest to her, it was about horses,

she goes to horse camp, but she had no idea.

Interview #1, 6/14/06

182

One of Maggie’s purposes for reading was to read the words accurately, and this purpose took precedence over making meaning from the text. Maggie’s accuracy extends to other areas of reading beyond decoding words, as seen from her comment in this interaction,

“Wait, weren’t you supposed to read that with me?” (lines 37 and 38) in which she catches Annie omitting one of her turns in the text. Maggie self corrects or attempts to self correct her errors independently throughout her reading (lines 29, 36, 39, and 63).

When the reading gets difficult, Maggie uses finger pointing to help her keep her place and to focus on the difficult words (lines 29 and 63). Maggie’s physical actions of leaning on her hand and the table reveal her frustration when the reading becomes so challenging that accurate reading is difficult to achieve (lines 29, 33, 51, 63, and 72).

When the reading is going well and she is able to read accurately, her physical actions of sitting up straight in her chair and smiling reveal her confidence with the task and pride in her ability to read accurately (lines 32, 37, 39, 48, 51, 59, and 71). As Annie stated in her

case report, “Maggie enjoys reading for academic purposes,” (p. 4). In this interaction,

the academic purpose of reading allowed Maggie to explore the aspect of her literate

identity that included reading as an accurate act.

Within other sessions, evidence of the priority Maggie placed on reading with

accuracy was also found. Annie employed Anticipation Guides as a pre-reading tool in

three of the lessons. In this tool, the reader predicts what will happen in a text by

agreeing or disagreeing with several statements taken from the text. The reader then

changes the initial responses following the reading of the text based on what actually

occurred in the text. Annie emphasized to Maggie that it was not important if her

answers were right or wrong, but that she should use them to help her monitor her

183

comprehension as she reads. Maggie was concerned with responding to each statement

correctly, and her inability to use her background knowledge to help her hindered her ability to make predictions about the book (Lesson #2 reflection). Annie structured her subsequent lessons to model for Maggie how to make predictions based on background knowledge, and then use the text to modify these predictions. The last time Annie asked

Maggie to complete an Anticipation Guide (Lesson #6) Maggie successfully used her background knowledge to make predictions using the statements, as in the transcript below.

Maggie 1 Mia was very close to her brother Garrett. 2 [Maggie makes a mark under “yes” on her paper.] Annie 3 What makes you think yes? Maggie 4 Because in some of the stories of Mia Hamm that we’ve read, 5 Garrett’s been, they’ve said his name a lot of times and stuff. Annie 6 Ok, that’s good information to use. Lesson #6, 7/5/06

As in the microanalysis above and the examples provided from other data, Maggie saw

reading as a task that should be completed accurately.

Competition

This theme represents Maggie’s attempts to resist the definitions of reading

imposed by Annie on the lesson. Competition in reading was a priority of Maggie’s, as

evidenced by her desire to complete her reading log before her brothers. However, as

discussed previously, Annie did not encourage the competition for the log, and did not

communicate that as a valued reading act. When opportunities within this interaction to

discuss adding to her log arose, Maggie’s physical actions included sitting up straighter and smiling. Even when Annie tried to redirect Maggie’s attention by bringing her back

to the text and the importance of making meaning out of what one is reading, Maggie’s

184

physical actions indicated her enjoyment. The force of reading as competition was so

strong for Maggie, that the influence of Annie’s comments was minimal. The comments

Maggie made related to the reading log demonstrated resistance to Annie’s desire for

Maggie to read for purposes other than competing with the log. Competing through

reading was a form of resistance to the dominant definition Annie brought to the

interaction.

Within the larger session of which this interaction was a part, Maggie commented

about her reading log on four occasions. Entering books onto the log was a priority to

Maggie, but Annie commented that the only books included on the log were ones they

had read together. Maggie was not doing any reading outside of the tutoring sessions to

add to the log (Interview #2, 7/24/06). Maggie stated in the second interview (7/24/06)

that the only reading she had done during the summer was “with my babysitters to add

books to my log.” Maggie’s purposes for reading over the summer were to add books to

her library reading log in order to complete it before either of her brothers, and although she communicated that this was important to her in her interviews and interactions with

Annie, she took no initiative to read additional books on her own time.

Maggie’s definition of reading as a task done to compete with others was also evident within other sessions over the summer. During the last session, Annie and

Maggie joined with Jenny and Ethan to play a game related to r-controlled vowels. My

field notes (7/24/06) and Jenny’s reflections on the lesson (Lesson #9 reflection, 7/24/06)

recount the intensity with which Maggie focused on this game. She and Annie had

completed a word sort during the previous lesson on r-controlled vowels, and during this

Maggie became tired and leaned on her hand or the table, indicating that she was not

185

fully engaged with the lesson (Field notes, 7/22/06). During the game, however, Maggie

was sitting up straight, asking Annie questions, with her eyes focused on her game cards.

She smiled and laughed throughout the game and was engaged the entire 30 minutes it

was played. When competition was a part of the activity, Maggie became more engaged in the reading task than when it was not a part of the activity. Related to the definition

Maggie held of reading as a task to be done with others, competition was another way in which Maggie viewed the function of reading in her life, as evidenced by the microanalysis and the examples from across the data provided.

Comprehension

Annie wanted Maggie to see comprehension as a goal of reading, and she structured her activities and strategies around this goal. Maggie had her own views of what the purposes of reading were, as discussed previously, and these were intermixed with the comprehension piece brought by Annie. Within this segment, Annie named the behaviors Maggie had done well while reading aloud, such as in lines 75-78 when she commented on Maggie’s effective use of punctuation. These comments did not require a direct response from Maggie but helped Annie to communicate her goal of comprehension to Maggie. Although the focus of this lesson was on fluency, Annie still brought in the definition of reading as making meaning through comments such as those related to punctuation above. Later in the lesson, beyond the parameters of the microanalysis, Annie discussed the meaning of the poems they read for fluency practice, relating their subjects to Maggie’s life.

Although a goal of Annie’s was for Maggie to use comprehension strategies in her independent reading (Lesson # 9 reflection, 7/24/06), Maggie was still not a reader

186

outside of school at the end of this study. Her third grade teacher commented that

Maggie needed to read more outside of school to improve her skills as a reader

(Interview, 10/9/06). This teacher also noticed that comprehension was clearly not a purpose for reading that was a priority of Maggie’s. The teacher noticed that Maggie was not willing to acknowledge that she had constructed meaning from a text, as if she did not feel that what she had understood was important to her success as a student. The teacher stated,

She’ll act like she doesn’t know something, and I don’t know if she’s pretending or if she truly doesn’t know something, but sometimes it seems like she understands more than she lets on.

Interview, 10/9/06

In the interview with Maggie in the fall, Annie asked her who the good readers in her class were, and what made them good readers.

They read all the words and go kind of fast. If they don’t know a word they sit there for a minute until they figure it out.

Interview #3, 10/9/06

For Maggie, her own purposes for reading were still dominant over Annie’s goal of comprehension. In her interactions with Annie, Maggie explored and strengthened her own definitions of reading, and began to explore reading for meaning as another possible purpose for reading.

187

Summary

The sections above have discussed the dyad of Annie and Maggie. Maggie was a

student who had a positive view of herself as a reader, and resisted Annie’s emphasis on

comprehension as a definition of reading. Maggie saw reading as something that should

be done accurately, and for social and competitive purposes. Annie persisted in

introducing comprehension as a purpose for reading through the interactions in the

lessons, and Maggie began to adopt this as part of her literate identity. The next section

will discuss the dyad of Nora and Matthew.

Nora and Matthew

In the following sections, the dyad of Nora and Matthew will be described. First,

I will provide a discussion of Matthew, the student, as a reader. Second, I will describe

the perspective of Nora, the teacher, on the assessment, evaluation, and instruction of struggling readers. I will then provide a description of the structure of this dyad’s tutoring sessions. Next, I will discuss the types of teacher-student interactions that occurred within the tutoring sessions between Nora and Matthew. Finally, I will discuss the identity shifts that occurred in Matthew through the interactions.

Matthew

Matthew was entering seventh grade during the summer this study took place.

Matthew was polite and well-mannered. He is a “sports fanatic” (Nora Interview #2,

8/1/06), who clearly was not thrilled with the idea of spending 4 hours a week in a library

during the summer, but he was cooperative and willing to work with Nora. Matthew had

been on an IEP at the start of his sixth grade year, but was taken off of it midway through

188

the year because his teachers felt he no longer needed it. Nora felt that reading, however,

was still an area of struggle for Matthew, and as he entered seventh grade with larger amounts of content area reading, wanted to assist him in developing some strategies for success. Matthew felt he was “an okay reader” (Interview #2, 7/31/06).

According to Nora, Matthew exhibited behaviors “typical” of a seventh grade boy

who struggled with reading (Interview #1, 6/20/06). He slouched in his chair, shrugged his shoulders when asked his opinion, and had no reading life outside of school related activities. However, Matthew was also polite, pleasant, and willing to work with Nora.

He understood the importance of improving his reading skills, and was motivated by the opportunity he was going to have to be a part of the football team in the fall. In school, despite behaviors which marked him as a “typical” struggling reader to Nora, Matthew had a “B” average and was well liked by all of his teachers. Matthew, although a typical middle school struggling reader in many ways, saw reading as something he needed to do well in order to be successful in life. His grades and standing with his teachers reflected his ability to perform successfully according to school standards, but his lack of motivation or desire to read because of the challenge it presented him reflected his struggle to read according to societal standards.

Matthew possessed a motivation and a desire to improve, which influenced the significant change in his literate identity over the course of the tutoring sessions. During the first interview, Matthew was unable to name anything (line 2) he did well as a reader without prompting.

Nora 1 What do you do well as a reader? Matthew 2 Nothing….I'm not that good. Nora 3 You can't think of ANYTHING? 189

Matthew 4 Nope….When somebody's reading I'm a good listener. Nora 5 OK, a good listener. Is that in class when I read? Matthew 6 Yeah. Nora 7 OK.

Interview #1, 6/27/06

Nora mentioned in both of her interviews that being a good listener was a strength that she and Matthew had discussed during the school year, so Matthew’s ability to name this strength in line 4 may have come from his conversations with Nora. Being a good listener may not be a strength that Matthew had internalized, but identified because he thought it was what Nora would want to hear.

Family was a significant influence on Matthew’s literate identity. Throughout the tutoring sessions, Matthew’s mother sat in the room with Nora, Matthew, and me. She did not participate in the sessions, but was interested in what Matthew was doing and in witnessing his progress. On one occasion, Matthew’s mother leaned over to me and said,

We buy him all these books, take him to the bookstore, thinking he will want to

read them, and he doesn’t read them.

Field notes, 6/27/06

Nora discussed Matthew’s mother’s involvement in his education in her interviews.

His mom’s concern was that reading was his biggest area of weakness, he's very

strong in math, as well, in the other content areas for the most part, but her fear

was the area of reading, and his mom and I had had several conversations, she

had come in, um, she and his grandmother had come in, a couple times

throughout the year, um, we eventually took him off the IEP about halfway

through the school year, but she and I had kind of talked and sort of had,

190

even though he went off his IEP sort of had this verbal agreement that he would,

you know, he was sort of, I was going to kind of keep an eye on him.

Interview #1, 6/24/06

Matthew’s Individualized Education Plan had been removed midway through his sixth grade year, when Nora was his teacher. Matthew was able to be successful in content area classrooms without any interventions, but reading remained an area of concern for his mother and for his teachers.

Matthew viewed his mother and his grandmother as people with whom he could talk about books (Interview #1, 6/27/06; Interview #3, 10/2/06). Matthew’s grandmother had a significant influence on his literate identity. Matthew described his “Nana” as a good reader in each of his three interviews. For example, in the second interview,

Matthew articulated the role model status his grandmother held for him (lines 4, 6-8, 10,

14).

Nora 1 Who is someone you think of as a good reader? Matthew 2 My grandma. Nora 3 Your grandma? Matthew 4 She reads every night. Nora 5 What do you think makes her a good reader? Matthew 6 I don’t know, she loves to read. She reads every night, 7 probably because back in her day they didn’t have 8 anything else to do. Nora 9 Ok, she has lots of practice Matthew 10 That’s what I’ve gotta do. Nora 11 Do you think you could be like grandma someday? Matthew 12 Yeah Nora 13 What would you have to do to be like grandma? Matthew 14 Practice Nora 15 Practice, yeah. Interview #2, 8/1/06

191

Although he saw his Nana as a good reader and could identify the reasons she was one,

Matthew did not emulate her behaviors in his daily life, as indicated by his mother’s comments about him not being willing to read books bought for him (Field notes,

6/27/06), and the omission of reading as something he includes in his activities outside of school (Interview data).

As the tutoring sessions progressed, it was clear that Matthew was starting to feel

more confident in his abilities as a reader. He started taking more risks, offering to read

aloud and taking extended time to complete writing assignments.

Nora reads the picture caption. Matthew volunteers to read the next two! He

stumbles on a few words in the second caption. Matthew is definitely taking more

risks today and is more willing to try words and read. They complete a writing

activity. He writes a journal entry from the perspective of a person in the dust

bowl. Matthew really gets into this and writes for a long while (16 minutes).

Field notes, 7/6/06

By the end of the tutoring sessions, he was able to articulate that some of the things he

did well as a reader were listening, summarizing, retelling, and reading out loud

(Interview #2, 8/1/06). Nora, too, noticed this shift in Matthew’s thinking.

Well one big change I've noticed, having had him last year, just more confidence,

I think, just his attitude, has certainly improved.

Interview #2, 8/1/06

A significant aspect to Matthew’s literate identity that was displayed throughout

the study was that he equated good reading with earning good grades and working hard.

In the following transcript excerpts from the three interviews Nora did with Matthew,

192

Matthew names his parents, his teachers, and his friends as describing him as a good reader because he works hard and earns good grades. In lines 3 and 6, Matthew is hesitant in naming himself as a good reader, even according to his parents, but is able to articulate the reason why they would feel he is a good reader. In lines 11 and 13,

Matthew displays a firmer understanding that it is his good grades that make people think he is a good reader, and in lines 18, 20, and 21, Matthew communicates with certainty that others view him as a good reader because of his hard work and good grades.

Nora 1 All right, and how would your parents describe you as 2 a reader? Matthew 3 I'm a good reader? Nora 4 What about you makes them think you're a good 5 reader? Matthew 6 Because I get good grades, I guess. Interview #1, 6/27/06

Nora 7 Ok, now, think about, I asked you this question at the 8 beginning, I want you to think how you are now, I want 9 you to think about how would your teachers describe 10 you as a reader, when they see you working in class? Matthew 11 I'm a good reader? Nora 12 A good reader, ok. Matthew 13 Because I would be working, just be working hard. Interview #2, 8/1/06

Nora 14 How would your new teacher describe you as a reader? Matthew 15 Um, ok, a good reader. Nora 16 Ok, what do you do that proves to her that you are a 17 good reader? Matthew 18 I do my work, I pay attention. Nora 19 Ok. How would your friends describe you as a reader? Matthew 20 Ok, a good reader, because I get the work done and I 21 help them and stuff. Nora 22 Ok, very good. Interview #3, 10/2/06

193

Interestingly, although Matthew saw the ways in which others equated his hard work with

good reading, he did not do this himself. When asked how he would describe himself as

a reader, Matthew gave the following responses:

Interview #1 I'm an OK reader. 6/27/06 Interview #2 I'm an OK reader. 8/1/06 Interview #3 I think I’m an OK reader, but I don’t think I am one of the best in my 10/2/06 grade.

Table 4.8: Matthew’s descriptions of himself as a reader.

Matthew saw himself, as he stated above, as an average reader. In the third interview,

Matthew was able to continue on from this statement to articulate that reading out loud was a skill he had improved upon as a result of the tutoring with little prompting from

Nora. Reading out loud was a skill that they had worked on throughout the summer,

because Nora felt that this was an area in which Matthew lacked the most confidence and

needed to improve to be successful in the seventh grade classroom he would be entering

in the fall (Interview #1, 6/20/06). In the previous two interviews, mention of what he

did well as a reader involved prompting and guidance from Nora. Consistent with his

value of hard work, Matthew mentioned that he wanted to be a 4.0 student (Session #8,

7/27/06), and Nora discussed how Matthew had motivated another student in class to work harder because of the importance of earning good grades for football eligibility

(Interview #2, 8/1/06). The value Matthew held for hard work is important because it is what enables him to be successful in school, despite the fact that his reading skills are

194

below grade level. Throughout the course of this study, Matthew’s literate identity went

from a lack of confidence in his abilities as a reader to an increased level of confidence in his abilities as a reader, all within the parameters of hard work.

Nora

Nora had been teaching sixth grade for 2 years in a rural middle school. As an

undergraduate student, she received a bachelor’s degree in middle childhood education

from the same university in which she was enrolled for her master’s degree in literacy.

Nora felt that reading, “can serve many purposes, there’s the reading that you do in

school, the reading that you first learn is the reading that your parents do, the stories and

that kind of thing, and then the reading for knowledge and learning, and then, as you get

older, maybe more reading for entertainment, or for pleasure, and then also maybe back

to information you know in your job or in the newspaper” (Interview #2, 8/2/06).

Nora believed that a struggling reader was,

Someone, typically they outwardly lack confidence, maybe if you’re looking for a

volunteer they look down, or the way they sit in their seat, or, you know maybe

they don’t answer a question if you’re reading together or they don’t really

answer, maybe they are trying to cause distractions in class, or, sort of to get

attention, that negative attention, you know, the class clown in particular.

Interview #2, 8/1/06

She also said that struggling readers vary in their comprehension abilities, as “they may

have great comprehension when they are read to, but can’t comprehend when they read

195

themselves” (Written reflection, 5/15/06). This perspective was also reflected in her

selection of Matthew as a student to tutor.

He comprehends quite well when read to, novels aloud in class, follows along

great, but he'll hold the book and just sort of look around, doesn't even look at the

book, which really says something about his oral, his listening skills are very

strong. But at the beginning of the year, he struggled a lot with independent

reading, it was constantly every day a new book, he'd be in it, or he wouldn't be

reading, or he'd pretend, and it was a struggle.

Interview #1, 6/24/06

Nora’s perspective on struggling readers was behaviorally based, reflecting the physical

behaviors she had seen from struggling readers in the past. Nora also referred to

struggling readers in terms of performance in relation to their peers. When describing

Matthew’s abilities, Nora compared his abilities to his peers as a method of measuring

the severity of his struggle. Nora defined struggling readers behaviorally and in relation

to their peers.

Nora admitted that she did not have extensive experience in working with assessments, so the assessments introduced to her in class were all new to her (Interview

#1, 6/24/06). She stated that she liked assessments that were informal, user friendly, and

that gave her a broad overview of a student’s abilities, like the Qualitative Reading

Inventory-IV.

I really liked the QRI, I really thought, at least for me, maybe not

having a huge amount of assessment experience, I really felt like that

gave me a good starting off point, maybe not as far as specifically where

196

is he at, but as far as ok, I can look at this task or this list and know

that he's around third grade, and as far as a starting point that was good to say

OK, I have this somewhat solid idea, and use the other ones, using like the Names

Test to see where specifically, breaking down words then, where are his issues in

that aspect.

Interview #2, 8/1/06

Nora sought to use broad informal reading assessments, such as the QRI-IV as a way to get an overall understanding of students’ abilities as readers, then use more specific informal assessments when she wanted to know more information about specific skill areas.

Evaluation was used by Nora to make determinations about students’ reading preferences, habits, and lives outside of school. Nora placed a high priority on evaluating a student’s motivation for reading, as evidenced by the way in which she defined struggling readers, according to physical behaviors that related to their engagement with reading. Nora’s goals for Matthew also centered on increasing confidence, motivation, and time spent reading outside of school (Interview data).

The fact that Matthew was behind his peers was a concern for Nora, and she focused her instruction on bringing him up to speed. During the first interview, Nora stated,

He's not you know so far behind for his age, but as he progresses over the next

couple of years, it's probably going to show even more, when he gets to next year,

and eighth grade, and into high school, he's going to really begin to struggle, and

then there's not as much assistance. Interview #1, 6/20/06

197

Nora was concerned for Matthew’s success and confidence as a reader as he left sixth

grade and met with higher and higher expectations as he progressed through the grades.

Her views on the instruction of struggling readers were that it should be individualized

based on student interests and motivations for reading. She did not mention the need to

tailor instruction to students’ individual needs, although she did do this in her lessons

with Matthew. She chose games for the word work portion of the lessons because “he liked when it was called a game” (Interview #2, 8/1/06), and because decoding words

was an area that Matthew needed to improve (QRI-IV results). For Matthew, she used

her knowledge of his interests and motivations to tailor instruction with the goal of

helping him to achieve greater confidence as a reader.

Nora was not confident in herself with instructing struggling readers, however.

She mentioned on several occasions that she had limited experience in working with

decoding strategies with her students. For example, in a written reflection for class, she

stated,

At times, as a middle school teacher, I feel uncertain of the topics of basic word recognition and word identification, especially when it comes to dealing with them every day in the classroom. On a daily basis, this is not something I have to concern myself with, so therefore, I feel slightly uncomfortable with these concepts.

Written reflection #4, 6/7/06

Nora’s confidence in working with struggling readers increased as the tutoring sessions

progressed, as I noted in my field notes,

I am struck by how much more confident Nora seems today. She is really feeling

more comfortable with Matthew, me, his mom (her audience!). She commented

198

afterwards how she was really happy with the progress he was making, and he

commented in his log how reading is getting more fun!

Field notes, 7/6/06

Nora valued the experience she had working with Matthew, stating that, as a sixth grade

teacher, she did not typically find opportunities to work with a student one-to-one, particularly with word recognition strategies. Nora valued this experience because of the

knowledge she gained that she would be able to use in the future (Interview #2, 8/1/06).

Instruction in word recognition was one aspect of the type of instruction she saw as

important when working with struggling readers, in addition to the importance of

individualization based on interests and motivations.

Nora and Matthew’s Tutoring Sessions

Nora and Matthew met in a public library for their tutoring sessions. For six of

the nine sessions, they met in a semi-private room that was part of the library. This room

was a solarium that was not open for reservations, but was sectioned off from the rest of

the library and had a separate entrance and exit. For the other three sessions, they met

out in the open area of the library. This was a source of frustration for Matthew, who

preferred to meet in the private room. During one session, a little girl wandered into the

private room, sat down in one of the chairs and began reading a book. Matthew was

bothered by this, and from that point on requested that the door separating the solarium

from the rest of the library be closed so that no one would walk in during the sessions.

Interestingly, Matthew’s mother attended each session, after asking Nora’s permission.

In addition, I was present at each session, with my video equipment. Matthew was

199

distracted by the video equipment initially, but quickly disregarded its presence, except at breaks or the end of sessions (field notes).

Nora followed the Literacy Lesson Framework during her sessions, but struggled at the beginning with how much time to allocate to each portion of the lesson. As the tutoring sessions progressed, Nora was more adept at allocating the appropriate amount of time to each portion of the lesson. Nora devoted the last 15-20 minutes of each session to the read aloud. She and Matthew had selected a book to read over the summer together, and she finished each session by reading aloud from this book while Matthew followed along in his own copy.

Nora struggled at first with whether she or Matthew should read the text aloud during the guided reading portion of the lesson. During the first interview, Nora mentioned that she reads aloud frequently in her classroom, so she wanted Matthew to have the opportunity to read aloud more over the summer to develop his fluency. Nora struggled with stepping out of her comfort zone as the reader to allowing the student to do the oral reading during the lesson. By asking him to read aloud, Nora was asked to interact with him about word identification strategies, an area in which she was not confident, as mentioned previously. However, by asking Matthew to read aloud, Nora was able to more effectively space each portion of the lesson and provide Matthew with opportunities to develop his fluency.

Types of Teacher-Student Interactions

200

included the subcategories of scaffolding instruction and teaching reading strategies. I found data in Nora’s sessions to support her use of telling as an instructional scaffold, the use of context clues as a reading strategy, and rereading as a reading strategy. Nora’s use of monitoring and probing questions is also discussed in a section below.

Telling as an Instructional Scaffold

Telling was used by Nora when Matthew reached a point of difficulty. For

example, Nora told Matthew what words said when Mathew read aloud from a book that

contained unfamiliar words that related to the subject of the story. As Matthew came to

these words, Nora would point at them, give Matthew suggestions, and at times ultimately tell him what the word was, as in the following transcript.

Matthew 1 Alexander Rob..in..son, the Choral..coral director…ceral…curl….coral… Nora 2 Mmm hmmm…Choir. Matthew 3 Choir director Nora 4 Mm hmm Matthew 5 Choir….choir director. Elapsed time: 25 seconds Session #9, 8/1/06

In line 1, Matthew attempted to decode the word on his own, and after five attempts,

Nora told him the word. His attempts indicated to Nora that he would not be able to

solve the word independently, so in order to allow him to move on with reading the text,

she told him the word. In her reflection following the lesson, Nora stated,

I felt a little frustrated during the lesson today, because I still felt like he was

having difficulty with a lot of the words he was reading. I have to remind myself though

that he is very behind for his age and he is still going to struggle as he continues to get

stronger at reading and recognizing words.

Lesson #9 reflection, 8/1/06

201

Nora’s frustration at Matthew’s inability to read the text smoothly resulted in her telling

Matthew what words said to help him move on with the reading. The text he was reading, When Marian Sang (Ryan & Selznick, 2002), is at a fourth grade reading level.

According to the results from the Qualitative Reading Inventory-IV (Leslie & Caldwell,

2005) completed by Nora prior to beginning tutoring, Matthew’s instructional level was third grade. Therefore, this text was beyond Matthew’s instructional level.

She often chose books for the guided reading portions that were beyond his instructional level. The table below summarizes Nora’s choices for guided reading over the course of the tutoring sessions. Of nine sessions, two of the book selections were at a third grade level, Matthew’s instructional level. Six of the books were one grade level above his instructional level, and one book was three grade levels above his instructional level.

202

Book Level Session/Date Teammates 6th grade Session #1, 6/27/06 (Golenbock, 1992) Tree of Cranes (Say, 3rd grade Session #2, 6/29/06 1991) Amelia and Eleanor 3rd grade Session #3, 7/5/06 Go for a Ride (Ryan & Selznick, 1999) Black Blizzard 4th grade Session #4, 7/6/06 (Scholastic, 1998) Coming to America 4th grade Session #5, 7/11/06 (Scholastic, 2002) A Picture Book of 4th grade Session #6, 7/12/06 Amelia Earhart (Adler) The Monroe Family 4th grade Session #7, 7/25/06 (Scholastic, 2001) Wilfrid Gordon 4th grade Session #8, 7/27/06 McDonald Partridge (Fox, 1985) When Marian Sang 4th grade Session #9, 8/1/06 (Ryan, 2002)

Table 4.9: Nora’s book selections.

Nora did not mention why she chose to use books for guided reading that were beyond

his instructional level. In class, she had been taught to choose books for this portion of

the lesson that were at the reader’s instructional level, although in Tancock (1994), the

article she had read about the Literacy Lesson Framework, the author indicates that more

attention should be paid to students’ interests than the published reading level. Nora did mention that she felt that Matthew needed to be challenged in his work, as stated in a lesson plan reflection.

I learned that Matthew really still needs help with word recognition and that I

need to continue to find good ways to help him figure out words. I know that he is very

intelligent and can do well with challenging work. Most of this thinking is done in his 203

head and I would be curious to hear what he had to say about those words as he was

thinking through them. I think he responds well to assistance from me and benefits from

an extra push.

Lesson #3 reflection, 7/5/06

Nora used telling to support Matthew as he encountered difficulty in challenging texts

when reading aloud. The use of telling moved Matthew ahead in reading the text, so that

he was able to focus on skills that were more appropriate to his abilities, rather than those

that were too difficult. This resulted in a dependence upon Nora during the reading of

difficult texts, but also gave him experience with reading grade level texts with the

support of a teacher.

Teaching the Use of Context Clues as a Reading Strategy

Nora taught Matthew to use context clues to solve unknown words for several reasons. First, by discussing words and what they meant, they were able to come to a shared understanding regarding the content of what they were reading. As evidenced by the emphasis on pre-reading activities that Nora chose throughout her lessons, the building of common background knowledge and understanding about a topic was a priority for Nora. This was based on Nora’s observation that Matthew enjoys books more when he likes to read them and knows something about the topic (Interview #1,

6/20/06). Secondly, Nora was not as comfortable with engaging in word analysis with

Matthew as she was with context clues, as she stated,

I worked with him when he came across a word that he struggled with. I really have not had much practice doing this and I hope that I am saying the right things to him.

204

I want him to work on figuring out words by himself. Obviously, I am there to prompt

him when needed, but I think he really needs to work through the words to practice.

Lesson #2 reflection, 6/29/06

As a middle school teacher, it is possible that Nora did not have as many opportunities to

engage in word analysis with students as the other 3 teachers had, because they taught younger readers.

An example of Nora using context clues to build shared understanding about a

concept follows. In this interaction, Matthew was reading aloud from the book Tree of

Cranes (Say, 1991).

Matthew 1 Time and again, she warned me not to play there, but I never listened 2 because the pond was filled with…with…carp…of bright colors. Nora 3 What’s a carp, do you know, what a carp is? Matthew 4 No. Nora 5 What might be, so, where are the carp? (gesturing to the picture) Matthew 6 These. (pointing to the picture) Nora 7 Well, look at the sentence. Where are the carp? What was the… Matthew 8 The pond was filled with carp… Nora 9 So look at the picture, and what might carp be? What’s it look like he’s 10 doing? Matthew 11 Leaning over the pond. Kaie 12 So it could be…what do you think it might be? What’s he got there, what 13 do you think might be on the end of the stick? Matthew 14 I don’t know, something sharp. Nora 15 Ok, keep reading. Matthew 16 Ok. Matthew 17 The last time I went there was a gray winter day, too cold for the fish to 18 move around. They never came out from under the rock and all I caught 19 was a shell. Nora 20 So what might a carp be? Matthew 21 A shell Nora 22 No…. Matthew 23 Oh….ok, hold on…oh, a fish. (scans the page) Nora 24 Fish, yeah, so what’s he have in his hand? Matthew 25 A stick for getting the fish. Nora 26 Yeah, or, what’s it look like? If you’re catching fish? Matthew 27 A…I know, but I haven’t fished in a long time…. 205

Nora 28 A pole…. Matthew 29 Oh yeah…a fishing pole. Nora 30 Ok, all right good, so we know what carp are now, a kind of fish. Time elapsed: 2 minutes Session #2: 6/29/06

In this interaction, Nora began by attempting to elicit Matthew’s background knowledge

about the word carp (lines 3 and 5). He did not have any (lines 4 and 6), so she focused

his attention on the context clues given in the text (line 7) and the picture clues (lines 9 and 10). When he still was unable to determine a meaning for the word, rather than telling him the word, she directed him to read on (line 15). Reading on initially did not help him to determine the meaning for the word (line 21), but when he referred back to the context clues in the text again, he was able to determine that carp were a type of fish

(line 23). His lack of background knowledge is clear from the interaction they have in lines 24-29, in which he is unable to identify the fishing pole. Nora acknowledges the

shared understanding they have reached in line 30, reinforcing the importance of using context clues to determine the meaning of a word.

Teaching Rereading as a Reading Strategy

As mentioned previously, Nora did not have a great deal of confidence in teaching

word analysis when Matthew encountered difficulty with a word. Many of the texts she

chose for guided reading, however, were above his instructional level (see Table 4.9) and

therefore caused him to run into difficulty with words he was unable to decode

independently. Nora encouraged Matthew to reread to assist in drawing his attention to difficult words. This was also consistent with the goal, shared previously, that Nora had for Matthew that involved him “figuring out words himself” (Lesson #2 reflection,

6/29/06). The following interaction is representative of the way in which Nora taught

206

Matthew to use rereading. Nora and Matthew are chorally reading a passage from

Coming to America (Boynton & Blevins, 2003).

Nora 1 Let’s look at that word, inspections. Matthew 2 Yeah. Nora 3 Do you know it? Matthew 4 Yeah. Nora 5 Can you say it? Matthew 6 Inspections. Nora 7 Ok, good, let’s read that sentence again. Nora/Matthew 8 Men women and children lined up in a huge room called the great 9 hall as they waited to be examined by doctors and questioned by 10 government officials. To determine whether the immigrants were 11 physically and mentally fit, they were given physical and mental 12 tests. The experience was often nerve-wracking. Matthew 13 What was that? Nora 14 Wracking that last word, say it. Matthew 15 Wracking. Nora 16 Good, Let’s go back and do that again. Nora/Matthew 17 The experience was often nerve-wracking. However, despite 18 crowded and difficult conditions, the majority of immigrants made 19 it through the battery of tests in a few hours and they were allowed 20 to enter the country. Nora 21 Let’s go back and do that again. We’ll start with however. Elapsed time: 1 minute, 5 seconds Session #3, 7/5/06

Matthew was required to “keep up” with Nora as they read, and any time he stumbled on

a particular word, Nora asked him to reread the sentence in which it was found, as in line

7. Rereading in this case helped to reinforce the pronunciation of words about which he was not certain, as he had the support of Nora during the oral reading of the text. Prior to the rereading, she would focus his attention on the word and ask him to pronounce it clearly for her (lines 5 and 6, 14 and 15). She also used rereading when his reading was not smooth or fell behind hers (line 21). Nora applied rereading when Matthew needed a tool to monitor his reading, as evidenced by the transcript above in which he reread the text to check the pronunciation of words about which he was unsure.

207

Types of Questions Asked by Nora

Nora’s use of monitoring questions was similar to Annie’s, because she used both

comprehension monitoring and memory monitoring throughout the lesson to check on

Matthew’s comprehension. As I noted in my field notes during Nora and Matthew’s final

session,

Nora has a pattern that she follows in each lesson. Matthew reads from the text,

she helps him to sound out words, she asks for a summary of what has been read

so far, she asks comprehension questions following the summary, and they

continue.

Session #9, 8/1/06

This pattern became apparent to me after observing Nora interacting with Matthew for 18

hours. In each session, she followed this pattern during the reading of a text. Nora used monitoring questions to continually check Matthew’s comprehension of a text during reading. Since Nora’s use of monitoring questions was similar to Annie’s, discussed previously, I will focus this discussion on Nora’s use of probing questions, which was the category she used the most in her interactions with Matthew. Monitoring questions will be revisited in the cross-case analysis at the end of this chapter. Nora’s use of the questioning categories I identified in my data analysis is summarized in the table below.

208

Nora Probing 46% Monitoring 24% Managing 11% Assisting 7%

Extending 6% Leading 5%

Restating <1% Clarifying -

Connecting -

Table 4.10: Types of questions asked by Nora.

Nora’s questions were focused primarily (46%) in the probing category. Nora used probing questions in conjunction with monitoring questions to elicit Matthew’s understanding of the text. “I like to use questions to get my students thinking” (Lesson

#3 reflection, 7/5/06). Prior to the reading of any text, Nora would devote time to eliciting and building Matthew’s prior knowledge about the topic. It was here that she would use probing questions to find out more about what Matthew knew. Nora used concept sorting in two of her pre-reading activities with Matthew. In concept sorting,

Matthew was given a group of vocabulary words on cards, and he was asked to sort them according to their meanings into categories. The following transcript provides examples of Nora’s use of probing questions to elicit prior knowledge and access Matthew’s thinking processes during the activity.

Nora 1 What do you think an aviator might be? Matthew 2 Parts to a plane. Nora 3 Parts to a plane, OK…..kind of a part to a plane, um, how’d you guess 4 that? Matthew 5 Because there’s like things in here that’s parts of a plane, so/

209

6 [The discussion about the meaning of the word continues. Nora directs 7 Matthew to sort the words into categories based on their meanings.] Nora 8 Ok, can you tell me what your categories are so far? Matthew 9 So far, airplanes. Nora 10 Ok, airplane stuff, and Roosevelt, Washington, they’re…(inaudible). Ok, 11 why are these two off in their own category? Matthew 12 They’re opposite. Nora 13 They’re opposite? Ok. 14 [Matthew continues sorting the words.] Nora 15 Ok, what do you think about this one? What is that one? Matthew 16 Li….. Nora 17 License. Matthew 18 License, oh yeah. Nora 19 Ok, good. What about, that word? Matthew 20 Adventure. Nora 21 Yeah, where might that go? Do you have a category that could fall under? 22 [Matthew moves the word to a category.] Nora 23 How come? Matthew 24 Because sometimes flying a plane can be an adventure. Nora 25 Ok, good. Session #3, 7/5/06

Nora opened the interaction with a question that probed Matthew’s background knowledge about the word “aviator” (line 1). Her question in lines 3 and 4 probed further into how Matthew arrived at his answer. After the meaning of the word was determined,

Matthew continued to sort the words into categories. Throughout this process, Nora used probing questions to access and to evaluate Matthew’s reasons for placing words into the categories he chose. Her question in line 8 probes Matthew to reveal the titles of his categories. Nora continues to probe as he places words into new categories (line 23), or off on their own (lines 10 and 11). In her reflection following the lesson plan from the transcript above, Nora stated,

Most of his thinking is done in his head and I was curious to hear what he had to

say about the words as he was thinking about them. Lesson #3 reflection, 7/5/06

210

Nora used probing questions 46% of the time when asking questions of Matthew. Nora

used these questions to elicit background knowledge and thinking processes from

Matthew, which she then used to evaluate his progress.

Literate Identity Shifts and the Teacher-Student Interactions

Nora had been Matthew’s teacher during the school year, so Matthew knew

Nora’s teaching style well. Matthew was willing to take risks in his reading, accepting

challenges given to him by Nora to do more reading aloud, despite the fact that he had an audience of two (his mother and myself) at each of his sessions. This willingness to engage in activities necessary to improving his skills as a reader made a difference in the positive changes in Matthew’s identity, as the following analysis will show.

In the first session, Nora struggled to engage Matthew in the tasks. She

commented that time was her biggest difficulty during the lesson, as “It all ended up

going much quicker than I thought it would” (Lesson #1 Reflection). His participation in

the writing activity was limited by his broken finger, but he declined to offer any further

ideas verbally. Matthew maintained a neutral stance throughout the lesson, sitting with

his legs swung to the side of his chair, his body not fully engaged in the interactions. He leaned back in his seat, away from the table where the books and materials lay. He shrugged his shoulders in response to Nora’s suggestion for them to choose a book from the library to read together over the summer, and offered little insight into his opinions about the books she selected (Field notes, 6/26/06).

By the fourth session, there was a significant change in Matthew’s verbal and nonverbal behavior during the session. Matthew sat with his feet under the table, his body aligned so as to be fully engaged in the interactions. He sat forward in his seat,

211

leaning into the texts he read. He made eye contact with Nora in response to her

interactions, and rather than shrugging his shoulders in response to her questions, he

offered his own ideas and interpretations of the materials he was reading (Field notes,

7/6/06).

Matthew’s identity development was a process of becoming more confident as a

reader. Analysis was conducted of a 15-minute segment of this fourth session (see

Appendix D) to reveal the ways in which Matthew was working to become a more confident reader through the interactions between him and Nora. Several factors were

considered in selecting this portion of the transcript for analysis. First, the session as a

whole represented a turning point in the tutoring. Nora was energized following this

session, as she commented to me as we walked out of the library how happy she was with

the progress he was making (Field notes, 7/6/06). Matthew, too, expressed in his journal

that this session had been a particularly positive one for him,

I feel a lot better with reading because it is getting a lot more fun to read and I

like what we read today too. Matthew’s journal, 7/6/06

The particular 15-minute portion of the lesson shows Matthew both working to become a

reader and dealing with forces operating against his efforts. This was a portion of the

lesson that did not initially appear to be a positive one, as I stated in my field notes.

He seems to be getting more and more bored, impatient with the sessions – he is

not seeing his own improvement.

Field notes, 7/6/06

Considering the positive comments Nora shared with me immediately following the

lesson, reviewing her lesson reflection, in which she stated, “I definitely noticed a change

212

in his attitude today” (Lesson #4 reflection, 7/6/06), and reading Matthew’s journal entry

(above), I decided to look back at this particular session. Multiple looks back at the session revealed to me the pivotal interactions that caused both Matthew and Nora to feel so markedly different about Matthew’s progress following this session.

Within this session, I selected a 5-minute portion to microanalyze (see transcript below). Selecting a short portion of the transcript to analyze enabled me to look closely at the various patterns of interactions occurring between Nora and Matthew, Matthew and the text, and between Matthew’s efforts at becoming a more confident reader. This

5-minute segment was selected out of the 15-minute portion because it involved several turns between Matthew and Nora, and it involved Matthew in a task that required him to produce responses to a reading task and to Nora. Although this shorter segment did not involve Matthew in physically reading a text selection, Matthew was engaged in pre- reading activities designed to build background knowledge of the text. During the reading of texts, Matthew and Nora did not typically engage in interactions beyond ones in which she assisted him in solving unknown words. This discussion showed Matthew engaging with both Nora and the text he was about to read to build his confidence. His engagement in this discussion was critical to developing his engagement with the selection, thereby initiating the pivotal moment in the tutoring, mentioned previously. By analyzing this segment of the transcript, I was able to see how the interactions between

Nora and Matthew were a part of Matthew’s process of becoming more confident as a reader.

This segment opens with Nora delivering the instructions for the pre-reading graphic organizer about cause and effect (see Figure 4.2).

213

Figure 4.2: Cause and effect graphic organizer completed by Nora and Matthew.

Nora and Matthew are preparing to read an article about natural disasters, so she asks him to name natural disasters he knows. Next, she asks him to think about what effects these disasters can have, and to list those.

Nora 1 Ok, well um we are going to read another article in a 2 little bit, but before we start reading it we’re gonna talk a 3 little bit about it so that we can start thinking about what Shows the 4 we already know about this topic. We’re gonna be paper to 5 filling in a little graphic organizer today, so I’ll just kind Matthew. 6 of do it for you since you can’t write, so we’re talking 7 about, what? Matthew 8 Natural disasters. He slides the paper over so that 214

it is in front of him. Nora 9 Natural disasters, do you know what a natural disaster is? Matthew 10 Yeah, earthquakes or volcanoes or something. Nora 11 Ok, so what we’re gonna do, and you’ve already started 12 doing it, is listing natural disasters that we know. 13 Hopefully we’ve not experienced any, so you’ve already 14 said two, so think about… Matthew 15 Volcanoes Leaning into the text, sitting up straighter in chair. Nora 16 Ok, anything else/ Matthew 17 /earthquake Nora 18 Earthquake Matthew 19 Hurricanes Nora 20 Good Matthew 21 Tornadoes Nora 22 Good Matthew 23 Is this like all natural…oh…ok.. Leans back in chair, slouches. Nora 24 What do you think, what were you going to say? Matthew 25 Forest fires, no it wasn’t that, it was bombs. Nora 26 Bombs? No, bombs probably wouldn’t be natural 27 disasters, but/ Matthew 28 /That’s what I thought Leans on his hand. Matthew 29 That’s what I thought, natural, after I was thinking, um, 30 forest fires. Nora 31 Ok!….anything else? Matthew 32 Would a hailstorm be natural? Nora 33 A hailstorm would be natural. Matthew 34 Avalanche Nora 35 Ok…what else? Matthew 36 Floods Nora 37 Good Matthew 38 Thunderstorms Nora 39 Ok… Matthew 40 Would a tropical storm be one too? Nora 41 A tropical…good, yeah. And we know that on the

215

42 weather lots of times they say, tropical storm, and then 43 tropical storms sometimes become… Matthew 44 Hurricanes Nora 45 Hurricanes, very good, anything else you can think of? Matthew 46 Tsunamis Nora 47 Good Nora 48 (Giggle)…..Any others? Matthew 49 No Nora 50 No? Matthew 51 Oh, uh blizzards. Nora 52 Good. Alright I’d say that’s a pretty good/ Matthew 53 Snowstorm Nora 54 Snowstorm, alright I’ll say snowstorm slash blizzard/ 55 Sometimes a snowstorm, then the next step up is a 56 blizzard/ Ok, the blizzard of, what was it? I think it was 57 before both of us were born, but it was a big blizzard. Nora 58 Ok so very good list, now, So think about all those 59 things you just listed, all those are good examples of 60 natural disasters. Disaster meaning something terrible 61 happened, natural meaning it’s caused by the 62 environment, that type of thing, so what can happen, 63 now our shooting back down to the bottom here, what 64 might happen because of all of those things? Matthew 65 People dying. Nora 66 Ok, so we have death. What else might happen? Matthew 67 Houses destroyed Nora 68 Ok… Matthew 69 Things destroyed, I think would… Nora 70 Ok, houses slash belongings Matthew 71 Belongings Nora 72 Destroyed, good, what else? Matthew 73 Could deforestation be one? Nora 74 Deforestation? Matthew 75 Yeah Nora 76 Um….yeah, that would, yes, we’ll add that, you’re 77 getting scientific on me! And sometimes, at least from 78 what I know about forest fires, sometimes it can be good 79 for that environment, but sometimes, yes, it can be bad. 80 Ok, good, what else? Matthew 81 More land? Nora 82 What? Matthew 83 More land, because from the volcanoes, wouldn’t they 84 make more land? Because when the thing-a-ma-jigger 85 erupts, I mean part of it melts, then it gives us more land

216

86 because it turns into rock. Nora 87 Ok, so maybe more land structures, say… Matthew 88 Yeah. Nora 89 What else might happen? Matthew 90 Blizzards and snowstorms, no school. Nora 91 (laugh), ok, so no school. Sometimes there’s good 92 results from snowstorms, sometimes there’s bad ones. 93 No school would be a good one. What else? Matthew 94 Flooding. Nora 95 Ok, so what, we’ve got that listed as a form of a natural 96 disaster, so what might happen because of the flooding? Matthew 97 Houses destroyed. Nora 98 Ok, we’ve got that. Matthew 99 Things floating down the river. Nora 100 Ok, things floating down the river. Anything else that 101 might happen? Matthew 102 Things catching on fire, from thunderstorms sometimes. Nora 103 Ok, maybe lightning might cause a fire. Good, anything 104 else you can think of, we’re just getting the wheels of 105 our brain turning here, thinking about the topic. You’re 106 doing a good job. Matthew 107 Inaudible. People can get stuck in their homes when 108 there is a snowstorm or blizzard. Nora 109 Ok, so trapped I’ll put, trapped in their homes. Matthew 110 They could be trapped in their homes if there is a 111 hurricane and they want to get out of the city. Nora 112 Ok, good, very good, you gave me lots of scenarios. Matthew 113 And sometimes in storms you can lose your family and 114 not know where they’re at. Nora 115 Ok. That happened last year in the tsunami. Matthew 116 And the one we had in Orleans, um.. Nora 117 Well, that wasn’t a tsunami, do you know what that 118 was? Matthew 119 A hurricane. Matthew 120 Oh yeah, the tsunami was the other thing. Nora 121 Yeah, but lots of people lost their families in that one too 122 and didn’t know where they were at. Session #4, 7/6/06

To analyze this segment, I began by examining the verbal and nonverbal behaviors that had been identified during the analysis of the larger data set as salient to the process of Matthew’s identity development. I began to see that in all of his responses,

217

Matthew was functioning between confidence and tentativeness in engaging with Nora and with the text he was preparing to read. In his tentativeness, he appealed to Nora for assistance in moving forward. I viewed this as his process of becoming a more confident reader, of working towards an aspect of his literate identity. Becoming more confident as a reader was also a theme that was seen across the larger corpus of data. At the end of the tutoring, Nora commented that the biggest difference she had seen in Matthew as a reader over the summer was his confidence level (Interview #2, 7/31/06). Matthew commented in both the second and third interviews that he felt confident about reading aloud, a skill that both he and Nora had identified at the beginning of the tutoring sessions as an area of weakness for Matthew. Matthew’s confidence in his ability to read grew over the summer, despite the fact that Nora chose books that were beyond his instructional reading level a majority of the time (see previous discussion).

At the beginning of this interaction, Nora controlled the lesson by delivering the instructions for the activity. Matthew immediately showed interest in becoming an equal participant in the lesson by physically taking the paper she was asking him to read from and placing it squarely in front of him (line 8). This action ignited a series of interactions that positioned Matthew as an equal, if not independent, participant in the lesson. He responded to Nora’s request to list natural disasters automatically, sitting up straighter in his chair and leaning slightly forward, into the text being read (lines 15, 17, 19, 21). The identity Matthew visualized for himself as a hard working, good student functioning independently, was realized as he worked independently on the task.

218

One of the ways in which Matthew developed confidence as a reader was through

Nora’s guidance when tasks became too difficult for him to complete on his own. In this interaction, riding the “high” of the ability to provide responses independently, Matthew attempted to form a response that was not quite as clear in his mind (line 23). He took a risk, and in so doing, reluctantly requested guidance from Nora, making his performance dependent on her assistance. Matthew physically settled into a state of dependence, by slouching in his chair and leaning on his hand (lines 23, 25, 29, 30, 31). Although

Matthew resisted dependence on Nora, she continually pulled him back to it when he began to struggle when working independently. She pushed him to articulate his thoughts aloud when he was unsure of the response (line 24). Although Matthew was relying on Nora’s guidance to confirm his thinking his responses are rooted in his own thinking, an indication that he still fought to prove his independence as a reader through these statements. For example, in lines 29 and 30, Matthew explains his own thinking related to his error. Nora accepted his thinking, but also ended the interaction once he provided an appropriate response, forest fires, taking back the control of the knowledge produced in the lesson and making his performance dependent on her guidance.

Although he continually fought to prove his independence as a reader, Matthew was aware that he was “not the best” (Interview #3, 10/6/06). Having had to relinquish some of his independence to receive guidance, Matthew was not as confident of his abilities to be independent in this situation. His use of questions, rather than declarative statements, indicate dependence, with Nora’s continual intervention monitoring the

219

knowledge produced. Nora posed a new task to Matthew (lines 56-62), and his desire to

be independent was renewed as he studied the paper in preparation for responding to the

task.

Evidence of Matthew fighting for independence as a reader was found throughout

the data. Although the texts Nora selected for Matthew to read were beyond his

instructional level, Matthew remained focused on the reading task and worked to read the

words aloud accurately and fluently. When he encountered difficulty reading a word,

Nora followed a pattern of pointing to the word, telling him to look at the letters or sound

it out, then telling him the word if his attempts were unsuccessful (Field notes). During

this process, Matthew persisted in attempting to solve the word using the sounding out

strategy that Nora encouraged. Even when this strategy did not help him get to the word

on his own, he only gave up when Nora told him the word in order to help him move

ahead in the text (Field notes). As the tutoring sessions progressed, Matthew’s increased

independence as a reader could be seen through him volunteering to read aloud (Session

#5) and displaying interest in the books and activities completed during the lessons by asking questions, making related comments, and completing assignments with enthusiasm (Field notes). The identity Matthew had been assigned by school as a struggling reader was challenged by the identity he perceived for himself as a successful

student. As Matthew worked to improve his reading skills through the interactions with

Nora, his literate identity as “Matthew,” a struggling reader capable of being a good

student, was developing through the interactions.

220

Summary

The sections above have discussed the dyad of Nora and Matthew. Matthew presented a positive view of himself as a reader, but at the same time lacked confidence in his abilities. Through the interactions with Nora, Matthew strove to be more independent as a reader and emerged with increased confidence in his abilities. Nora provided support through the interactions, such as telling, teaching the use of context clues, and teaching rereading, to assist Matthew in reading texts that were beyond his instructional level. The following sections will discuss the dyad of Jack and Patrick

Jack and Patrick

In the following sections, the dyad of Jack and Patrick will be described. First, I will provide a discussion of Patrick, the student, as a reader. Second, I will describe the perspective of Jack, the teacher, on the assessment, evaluation, and instruction of struggling readers. I will then provide a description of the structure of this dyad’s tutoring sessions. Next, I will discuss the types of teacher-student interactions that occurred within the tutoring sessions between Jack and Patrick. Finally, I will discuss the identity shifts that occurred in Patrick through the interactions.

Patrick

Patrick was entering fourth grade during the summer in which the study took place. Patrick was quiet and reserved, but willing to work with Jack, who had been his third grade teacher the previous school year. He spoke with a slight speech impediment, pronouncing his r’s as w’s. This affected his ability to pronounce words, and often the

221

strain of attempting to pronounce a word correctly caused him to actually decode the

word incorrectly, as well. Patrick received Title One reading instruction in the past, but

currently was not receiving any outside intervention.

Jack stated that Patrick was “probably the poorest reader in my class” (Interview

#2, 7/31/06). In contrast, Patrick felt that he was “a good reader” (Interview #2, 7/31/06).

Patrick was similar to Ethan in that he seemed unaware that the difficulties he had with reading marked him as different from anyone else. Patrick not only described himself as

a good reader, he felt that others would say that he was a good reader, as well (Interview

data). During the tutoring sessions, Patrick exhibited this same confidence in his abilities

as a reader when Jack attempted to address points of difficulty with him. Patrick’s

confidence masked his lack of self-monitoring skills, a weakness that described his

struggles with reading.

Jack 1 Good, I want you to keep thinking, about asking yourself 2 questions as you read. They will help you understand what 3 you are reading. SO if you get to a hard part, you could even 4 ask me, what did that mean, like this part, because that was 5 confusing, wasn’t it? Patrick 6 No Jack 7 It was for me. Patrick 8 It wasn’t that confusing. Jack 9 Yeah, I think the second time you read it you got it, but it 10 was confusing, at least for me. Patrick 11 Uh huh. Session # 2, 7/3/06

Jack used modeling throughout his tutoring sessions with Patrick, and in lines 7, 9, and

10 above he was attempting to model the use of questioning at points of difficulty.

Patrick, however, could not identify that this part of the story caused him any difficulty

(lines 6 and 8), despite the fact that Jack mentioned that it was also difficult for him. Jack

222

perceived the difficulties Patrick was having with self-monitoring, while Patrick saw himself as successful because he had read the word accurately and felt he had comprehended what he had read. Patrick continued to struggle with asking questions to monitor his understanding as he read because he perceived it as a sign that he was having difficulty.

Jack 1 Good, did you think of any questions to ask yourself? Patrick 2 No. Jack 3 I thought of a question that I was thinking, either to ask you 4 or for you to ask yourself, it had something to do with, he 5 drove in for the basket, drumming the ball against the floor 6 with machine gun swiftness, can you think of any questions 7 you can ask yourself about that part? Patrick 8 No. Jack 9 No? Focus on the second part of the sentence. Patrick 10 Um, with his fastest, Jack 11 Well, ok, but you have to ask a question, I think you’re 12 thinking of a question and then answering it, what would be a 13 question you could ask? Patrick 14 What? Jack 15 Well you said this means fastest, right? Patrick 16 Yeah. Jack 17 Ok, so what would the question be? Patrick 18 How fast? Jack 19 Right like what does that mean, how fast is it? Patrick 20 Uh huh. Jack 21 So then the answer would be machine gun swiftness means really fast, right? Patrick 22 Yeah. Jack 23 Why does it mean really fast? Patrick 24 Um, because he had to move really fast to the basket. Jack 25 Right, and what about the clues it gave you in the sentence? Patrick 26 Um Jack 27 Have you ever seen a machine gun in a movie or anything 28 like that? Patrick 29 Yeah. Jack 30 How does a machine gun shoot? Patrick 31 Fast. Jack 32 Really fast, exactly, so that’s how you knew he had to move 33 the ball against the floor so fast. Session #2, 7/3/06 223

Patrick understood what it meant to move with machine gun swiftness (line 10). He did

not understand, however, that Jack wanted him to use questioning as he read to monitor

his understanding. There are two possible reasons for this misunderstanding. One is that

Patrick did not understand the task. Jack wanted him to use self questioning to monitor

his understanding, but Patrick did not understand the difference between this type of questioning and questions that reflected confusions. Jack focused on this skill in the remaining tutoring sessions. The second possible reason for Patrick’s struggle with using questions as he read is a reluctance to appear as if he did not understand what was being read. This reason was supported by data that showed that once Patrick understood how to use self-questioning as he read, he was more willing to pose questions, as long as it was clear that the questions did not reflect his own misunderstandings, but rather those that someone else who read the text might have.

Jack 1 Good. When you were reading that page I was thinking something in my 2 head. I wasn’t quite sure of something so I asked myself a question, and 3 then I think I figured it out. Did you have any questions in your mind 4 that didn’t quite make sense at first when you were reading? Patrick 5 Um……..no, well I think I know what somebody else would ask? What 6 heel raises are. Jack 7 Exactly, that was the same question I had in my mind. Good, so what 8 was the question I was asking myself? Patrick 9 What are heel raises? Jack 10 Good, and I figured it out. How do you think I figured it out? Patrick 11 Um…..you looked here. Jack 12 Ok, good, I looked at the picture on the next page, and also heel raises, I 13 know what a heel is, right? A heel is the bottom part of my foot, so if I 14 think about raising your heel off the ground, and I look at that picture, it 15 looks like she is raising her heel off the ground. Good, keep trying to do 16 that, just like we did last time, if you come to any parts that you think 17 might confuse someone else, or a part that is confusing, stop and talk to 18 me about it, think of a question you might ask, if it was confusing to you. Session #4, 7/10/06

224

In the transcript above, Patrick was able to think of a question to ask about his reading, but he was sure to point out that it was not a question that reflected his own confusions

(lines 5 and 6). Jack praised him for his success in monitoring his reading, and from this point forward in the tutoring sessions, Patrick became much more willing to ask questions as he read. The use of questions proved helpful when breakdowns in comprehension did occur in Patrick’s reading. The following transcript comes from a discussion Jack and Patrick were having about a reader’s theatre script they were practicing. Patrick initiates a question about the text in line 1, and Jack responds by discussing the point of difficulty with Patrick in lines 2-9.

Patrick 1 How could they run out of servants? Jack 2 Well, how do you think? Why don’t you think they could 3 run out of servants? Patrick 4 Well, what would they do if they did, because, did they die, 5 or what happened to them? Jack 6 I think, when they say run out, they meant that they ran out 7 of servants to do jobs for them, and they had so many jobs, 8 they didn’t have enough servants to do all the jobs. Patrick 9 OK. Session #8, 7/19/06

Once he understood how to use self-questioning and that it did not reflect any struggle to comprehend on his part, Patrick was able to use self-questioning to comprehend what he read.

As Jack stated in the first interview, “He doesn’t want to fail” (6/20/06). Patrick’s literate identity was a confident one, and this led to his unwillingness to admit any struggle with reading. Jack chose to have Patrick complete The Reader Self Perception

Scale (McKenna & Stahl, 2004) prior to and following the tutoring sessions as one of the ways in which he chose to gather background information about Patrick. This was an

225

assessment Jack chose to use to fulfill the requirement for the course to assess a student’s attitude towards reading and interests related to reading. None of the other teachers selected this assessment. In both surveys, Patrick said that he agreed with the statement that he was a good reader, in addition to statements which addressed if others also viewed him as a good reader. In fact, as Jack observed, Patrick felt that others viewed him as a better reader than he viewed himself.

It was interesting to me because everyone around him he said saw him as a

higher, and then he saw himself as a little bit lower than everybody else, he said

he was an ok reader, or a good reader, but he said that everyone else saw him as

a really good reader, so, it's just kind of interesting, and I think kids, even

kindergarten or first grade, you know they're just emerging, they know if they're

behind or, how they're doing, and even if they don't vocalize it or aren't able to

tell you.

Interview #1, 6/20/06

In Patrick’s view, any struggles he was having with reading were only visible to himself.

His parents, his teachers, and his peers saw him as a strong, capable reader, according to

Patrick. Although Patrick projected a confident and positive image of himself as a reader, indications such as the one mentioned, revealed that he was aware that he struggled. Jack also noticed this in his behavior in the classroom.

He didn't enjoy reading as much, but he didn't stay on task and stay focused the

entire time and I think that was a result of him knowing, his own perception of

himself as a reader and not being able to read the books that everyone else

226

around him is reading and he just wasn't as comfortable with where he was as a

reader, I think.

Interview #1, 6/20/06

Jack noticed that Patrick’s perception of his abilities as being lower than his peers was

influencing his ability to succeed in the classroom, which led him to select Patrick for his

project.

Patrick’s literate identity was also influenced by his family relationships. Patrick

was the middle child with two sisters, and the three spent a great deal of their time

together. His sisters were always at the library during the tutoring sessions, playing at

computer stations that were located adjacent to where Jack and Patrick worked. Patrick

commented during the first interview that his younger sister is a good reader because,

She can read a really, really hard book that has hard words in it that are hard to

pronounce and she pronounced them all. She reads on her own, even when my mom

didn’t tell her. She even reads when other people are playing.

Interview #1, 6/22/06

Patrick mentioned in his interviews that he liked to find places to read that were away

from his sisters, as they bothered him while he was trying to read. Patrick talked at

length during the ninth tutoring session about a story he had written on his own, that had

been lost because his sister threw it away. His sisters were not solely a negative influence on his reading life, however. When asked if he talks about books with others,

Patrick stated,

227

If I really like it I tell my sisters to read it. But they don’t normally listen to me.

Only sometimes they do. I don’t listen to them either because it gets boring when my sister reads. She reads books that are for girls.

Interview #1, 6/22/06

Patrick’s sibling relationship gave him a place to talk and share about books, and it also gave him a yardstick against which he measured his abilities as a reader. As Jack stated,

He has a very literate family, his younger sister is in first grade, or just finished

first grade, and her reading level, I guess, from what mom tells me, is right about

what his is or maybe even a little bit higher at this point. So I think, emotionally,

or whatever, that has a huge effect when your younger sister is… and he doesn't

get along, he's one of um four with three sisters, so he doesn't like to be outdone

by his sisters especially. He doesn't get along well with his sisters, so that just

adds to the animosity I think between them, or the clash, so…um, but that's a big

thing, I think, is his younger sister being able to outdo him, he's mentioned that to

me a few times in his surveys and earlier in the year.

Interview #1, 6/20/06

Jack

Jack had been teaching for 3 years in a suburban elementary school. The district in which Jack teaches is located in an affluent area and consistently receives the highest ranking on the state report card. At the time of the study, Jack taught third grade, but he has also taught first grade. Jack attended a different university for his undergraduate degree than the one in which he was enrolled for his master’s degree in early childhood education. Jack was enrolled in the course that was the focus for this study to fulfill the

228

requirements for his reading endorsement. Jack thought that reading was, “Reading print

material for a variety of reasons, and understanding what you’re reading, having a purpose for reading, an intrinsically motivating purpose, not because you have to answer these questions, to be reading the newspaper, comics, fiction, nonfiction” (Interview 2,

8/2/06).

Jack defined struggling readers in comparison to their chronological age and grade level. His descriptions of struggling readers focused on their performance relative to where other children their age typically performed.

A struggling reader, to me, is a student that does not spend the necessary time

engaged in the reading process to increase his/her reading ability. OR it could be

a student that has not developed the necessary tools or skills needed to read

independently on an appropriate level for his/her age or grade. Typically, the

struggling readers I have come across do not have a love for reading and/or the

desire to read on a regular basis. In addition, most struggling readers are not

confident in their reading ability, are not fluent and have difficulty

comprehending texts and decoding unknown words. They often have a difficult

time choosing appropriate books that interest them.

Written reflection, 5/15/06

Jack’s view of struggling readers represented a skills based perspective primarily, but he also considered the importance of motivation and confidence as essential to successful reading. Jack had goals for Patrick that related to improving his sight word knowledge and his fluency, but he also wanted to help Patrick feel more confident in approaching

longer texts and in selecting books he would enjoy reading (Interview #1, 6/24/06).

229

Jack was very clear when asked about how he used assessment with struggling

readers that assessment and instruction were closely linked.

I truly believe that the main purpose of assessment should be to inform

instruction, not to assign grades, as it seems so many teachers believe.

Written reflection #1

He favored short, specific assessments that gave him targeted information about students’ reading abilities over longer reading inventories that provided a broad scope of information. When asked what he looked for when selecting a reading assessment, Jack stated,

Something that you can immediately use to determine how to instruct them and

what areas to instruct them in and I don't like the QRI-4, particularly, for third

grade students, because I feel like it's so broad, because what is a third grade

reading level, if they're reading at a third grade level, what does that really mean,

because to me that's a wide range of levels, but something that narrows in on

specific skills so you can focus your instruction on those skills. Because if it

includes everything, like even running records, there's so many things to take into

account, like you can assess or determine what level to read at, but it's hard I

think to really get something specific out of it to really form…so I guess what I am

saying is some of the, like the nonsense word tests, I can take the information as

soon as I give the tests and say OK, he definitely doesn't have this skill. He

definitely needs work on this, same with DIBELS because it’s only, one of the

main focuses is fluency, I can use that as solely fluency, this is how well, or how

230

fluent he is, um, so not something that's really general but something that focuses

on a specific skill.

Interview #1, 6/24/06

This sentiment was repeated during the second interview, when Jack referred to the

DIBELS and nonsense word tests as tests he referred back to as he instructed Patrick. He also reiterated that he did not find the broad scope given by the QRI-IV to be particularly helpful to him in teaching Patrick (Interview #2, 7/31/06). Jack stated his belief about the uses of assessment to inform instruction of struggling readers during the first interview.

Like when I’m doing these assessments we talk about them after we do them and I

can say, now this is really this and this was really this and, you explain why

you’re listening to them read and taking a running record, and it’s all to make

you better, and you give them what you want them to work on in their reading.

And it may take time, at first the student might be uncomfortable with it but

eventually, if it’s an effective teacher they will be OK with it and they’ll value the

assessment and feedback and once they realize what the real purpose is and they

can see how far that they’ve come, when you compare the beginning and the end

of the year. And you can say, look at how far you’ve come on this one.

Interview #1, 6/20/06

Consistent with this view, Jack believed that struggling readers needed to be looked at

“locally, comparatively, from what I see, on a daily basis, is the only way to really do it so you’re addressing student needs” (Interview 2, 8/2/06). Jack also felt that assessment results should be shared and explained to struggling readers to assist them in setting goals and monitoring their own progress. This view was reflected throughout his instructional

231

interactions with Patrick. Jack utilized timed, repeated readings of passages and sight

words with the goal of improving Patrick’s fluency, an area Jack identified as a concern.

Assessment and instruction were integral and cooperative pieces to meeting the needs of struggling readers, according to Jack.

Jack and Patrick’s Tutoring Sessions

Jack and Patrick met in an open area of a public library, except for one session in

which they were able to work in a private room that was part of the library. Patrick

attended the summer reading club meeting immediately prior to working with Jack, and

his sisters accompanied him to this. His sisters typically sat at a row of computers

adjacent to the table at which Jack and Patrick worked during the sessions, and their loud

conversations distracted Patrick during the sessions (Field notes, 7/3/06). As Jack noted,

I did notice, the times that we worked in a separate room or when there weren't

many people around, I did notice a difference, and I think those types of outside

factors affected him a lot less than it would've a lot of kids, but I think if we

could've had the room downstairs to ourselves, that would've helped a lot.

Interview #2, 7/31/06

It was recommended that the teachers meet with their students for 9 sessions of 2

hours each over the course of 5 weeks. Jack felt that this schedule would not work well for Patrick, as he was concerned about his attention span for a two 2-hour time period.

Therefore, Jack chose to schedule more frequent sessions of shorter duration, about an

hour to an hour and a half, rather than the 2-hour sessions. Jack and Patrick ended up

working together 13 times; 10 times for an hour and a half, and 3 for 1 hour. The length

of the tutoring sessions was dependent on both Jack and Patrick’s availability, but Jack

232

would not allow them to exceed an hour and a half. At the end of the summer, Jack commented,

I guess I wish that I had a little more time with him, I mean I guess it would have

been nice to meet with him every single day, for that amount of time, for like an

hour and a half, an hour is too short, and I think too much longer would've been

too long, maybe a couple days it would've been nice to have 15 or, I mean I am

glad I shortened the times and did it more frequently, I think the consistency and

reinforcement of doing it more often was good, um, and then they could the

sessions could be a little more intense, because there wasn't anything with

everything they had to work with.

Interview #2, 7/31/06

In this comment, Jack refers to the fact that he was glad he had shortened the sessions because they allowed him to focus on key pieces of the Literacy Lesson Framework that he felt were most important for Patrick’s progress, rather than spending time on pieces that he did not feel were as essential. Jack did cover all of the pieces to the framework over the course of the tutoring sessions, but working with words, writing, and the read aloud were juggled around depending on the amount of time available during the lesson.

In the hour and a half sessions, Jack would cover all of the elements to the framework.

When the sessions lasted only an hour, Jack gave Patrick a choice as to which pieces were completed. The pieces that were held constant were the guided reading and familiar reading portions of the framework, which were attended to in each of the 13 sessions.

Jack utilized the familiar reading portion of the sessions to help Patrick with his fluency. Each session began with Patrick reading timed fluency passages, in which he

233

read a passage and was timed by Jack. Jack kept track of his times and shared them with

Patrick. Patrick read each passage three times over two sessions, with a new passage introduced at each session. Patrick also read sight words from Jack’s laptop computer, and Jack timed how quickly he could read each set of 100 words. One of Jack’s goals was to help Patrick improve his fluency, so he chose to use the familiar reading portion of the framework to work toward this goal using timed readings of passages and words.

Within these timed readings, Jack emphasized speed, accuracy, and prosody, and the importance of reading the passages “not too fast, not too slow, but like a good reader would” (Session #1, 6/22/06).

Types of Teacher-Student Interactions

As was discussed in chapter 3, two broad categories of teacher-student interactions emerged from the analysis of the data, those that occurred at the point of difficulty and use of questions. Interactions that occurred at the point of difficulty also included the subcategories of scaffolding instruction and the teaching of reading strategies. Within these categories, I found data in Jack’s sessions to support his use of explicit teaching, including explaining, noticing, and telling, as instructional scaffolds; teaching word analysis as a reading strategy; and teaching the use of background knowledge as a reading strategy. Jack’s use of monitoring questions is also discussed in a section below.

Explicit Teaching as an Instructional Scaffold

Jack used explicit teaching in the form of noticing, explaining, and telling during the lesson to assist Patrick in achieving the goals he had set. First, I will discuss Jack’s

234

use of noticing, then explaining, then telling to illustrate the ways in which Jack used explicit teaching during the lessons. Jack’s noticing comments are summarized in the table below.

235

Session #2 You got most of these right today, the ones through and thought, but you self corrected yourself, and you said it very quick. Session #2 Last time you said explain, and this time you did say being again for begin, but look how close those words are, they're very close. Session #2 You noticed that it would sound better with the quotation marks and the exclamation points, so you went back and reread it, which was a really good thing to do. Hopefully next time you'll even remember to notice that the first time. Session #3 But you did a good thing. If you don't understand something you should go back and reread, shouldn't you? Session #3 Good, so you asked that question, even though you already knew the answer, but it was still a good question, for somebody else, right? Session #4 I noticed this time that you did differently than you had in the past, you didn't go back and reread as many times as you did last time. Probably because you practiced it, you were more fluent. Session #5 Almost the whole time, your eyes were looking a little bit ahead so that you anticipated what you were going to be reading next, and that helps you go even faster, so that was good, keep doing that. Session #5 I think I noticed one more thing that you're doing really well. You must be practicing, are you practicing reading a lot at home, too? I can tell. Um, every period you got to you stopped for just a split second, which is what you're supposed to do. And you didn't accidentally run two sentences together, like a lot of people would, and then you'd have to reread. You made sure you stopped at the end of the sentences, which is good. Session #5 And I noticed that one of the things that made you go faster is that you said you the words a little quicker, like just reading them a lot faster will help you go faster, too. Try to keep doing that, not just reading them fast, but saying them a lot faster, too. Session #6 I noticed something about these words when you were reading them. I think that actually saying them and getting them out of your mouth took a little bit of time. But I noticed today especially a lot that you were saying them even faster, you were reading them and saying them a little faster, and to go that fast you need to do both, so keep doing that. Session #7 You changed your voice from this character to this character, so that was really good. Keep doing that. Good job.

Table 4.11: Jack’s noticing comments.

236

Jack had 11 examples of noticing. Jack frequently used noticing to build Patrick’s confidence as a reader. Jack was Patrick’s third grade teacher during the previous school year, and he had noticed that,

He didn't stay on task and stay focused the entire time and I think that

was a result of him knowing, his own perception of himself as a reader

and not being able to read the books that everyone else around him is

reading and he just wasn't as comfortable with where he was as a reader,

I think.

Interview #1, 6/20/06

Jack wanted to build Patrick’s confidence as a reader, and like Annie, he chose to use noticing what he had done well to accomplish this. Jack used noticing most frequently during the timed readings he had Patrick do at the beginning of every lesson. Of his 11 examples, all but the last example, from Session #7, are from the timed reading portion of the lesson. This was a portion of the lesson Patrick enjoyed, as Jack commented,

His mom said he really liked it, but as a challenge, to try to improve.

Interview #2, 7/31/06

The transcript reproduced below represents a series of interactions surrounding Patrick’s reading of a timed passage. After Patrick completed a second try at reading the passage,

Jack discussed his errors with him.

Jack 1 Good, ok, that one actually took you a little bit longer, and I was thinking 2 why, do you have any ideas? Patrick 3 Um up here. Jack 4 Ok, you kinda got stuck, and you had to reread it, that took you a little bit 5 longer, right? Patrick 6 Uh huh. Jack 7 So when you read you want to read as accurately as possible, the first time,

237

8 so that you don’t have to go back and reread. Patrick 9 Uh huh. Jack 10 But you did a good thing. If you don’t understand something you should go 11 back and reread, shouldn’t you? Patrick 12 Uh huh. Jack 13 Yeah. So if you understand what you read, you don’t need to go back and 14 reread, but if you get confused you can go back and reread, that’s a good 15 strategy to use. Patrick 16 Uh huh. Session #3, 7/5/06

In line 2, Jack asked Patrick if he had noticed what had caused him difficulty, and when

Patrick pointed it out to him successfully in line 3, Jack went on to use noticing and

explaining to focus Patrick in on the correction of his errors. In lines 4 and 5, Jack

noticed what had caused Patrick difficulty, confirming Patrick’s response. Lines 10 and

11 also reflect use of noticing, but this time it is to point out what Patrick had done well as he read. In lines 13-15, Jack explained how rereading may be helpful when Patrick encounters difficulty in reading. In the interaction above, Jack used noticing and explaining to guide Patrick’s learning back into his zone of proximal development.

Jack used telling when Patrick reached a point of difficulty in his reading. In using telling as a way to focus a student at a point of difficulty, the teacher provided a definition or told the student the word that was causing difficulty using minimal discussion with the student. The following transcript includes a set of two interactions surrounding the reading of a reader’s theatre script, and illustrates in what situations Jack chose to use telling as a way of explicitly teaching reading skills or strategies to Patrick.

Patrick 1 What is this word? Jack 2 Pharaoh. Do you know what a pharaoh is? Patrick 3 Um, no. Jack 4 Can you figure it out? Their school trip has brought them on a tour of 5 the burial chamber of an ancient pharaoh. Patrick 6 A king? 238

Jack 7 Exactly, good job figuring that out. 8 Patrick reads silently (38 seconds). Patrick 9 What’s this word? Jack 10 Hieroglyphics. 11 Pause (6 seconds) Jack 12 Do you know what that is? Patrick 13 No. Jack 14 Hieroglyphics are an old type of writing that they used to use in Egypt a 15 lot. Patrick 16 Ok. Jack 17 It kind of uses pictures, instead of letters, it uses pictures/ Patrick 18 Ok. Jack 19 /to write. Lines 1-7: 20 seconds Lines 9-19: 27 seconds Session #10, 7/24/06

In the first interaction, lines 1-7, Patrick initiated the interaction by asking Jack the

meaning of the word pharaoh. Jack told Patrick that the word is pharaoh, instead of

asking him to figure out the word on his own. Rather than telling Patrick the meaning of the word, Jack gives the question back to Patrick (line 2), asking him to figure out the meaning of the word on his own (line 4). Jack did not complete reflections for his lesson

plans, so I cannot know his reasons for choosing this approach with certainty, but based

on my analysis of the interaction, it seems that Jack felt that pharaoh was a word that was

too difficult phonetically for Patrick to decode. It was a word that Jack felt that Patrick

could figure out successfully based on the context clues, due to the fact that he read the

line from the script aloud to Patrick (lines 4 and 5). Picture supports were not available

with this script. In the second interaction, lines 9-19, Jack first told Patrick the word (line

10), then paused for 6 seconds while Patrick read on (line 11). When Patrick indicated

that he did not know the meaning of the word (line 13), Jack told Patrick the definition

(lines 14, 15, 17, and 19). Without documented reflections from Jack following the

lessons, my analysis is based on the previous interaction in which Jack did not feel

239

Patrick would be able to figure out the meaning of hieroglyphics on his own. I examined

the script used in the lesson for the context clues provided by the text for both of the

words, pharaoh and hieroglyphics. Following is an excerpt from the script surrounding

the word pharaoh.

Narrator 1 Their school trip has brought them on a tour of the burial chamber of 2 the ancient pharaoh. Tour Guide 3 To speak the names of the dead is to make them live again! Amy 4 Simon, what are you doing? Pay attention. Tour Guide 5 Throughout the tomb, and especially when we enter the burial 6 chamber, we must refer to the mummy as “The King,” or 7 “Pharaoh.” Is that understood? Don’t Wake the Mummy, p. 1 (Jack’s Case Study)

Patrick might have been able to figure out the meaning of pharaoh by scanning down the

page to line 6, where it states that the mummy should be referred to as “The King” or

“Pharaoh.” Jack anticipated that this would be a task Patrick would be able to do with a

little bit of guidance, and therefore gave him the responsibility of doing so. Following is

the text surrounding the word hieroglyphics from the script.

Amy 1 Simon, I think you’re missing important stuff. I read about this on 2 the Internet before we left for the trip-it’s a kind of curse or 3 something. Simon 4 These hieroglyphics are strange…very strange. Mrs. 5 Come along children. Step lively; we’re leaving the ritual shaft and Crabwalk 6 heading toward the burial chamber. Narrator 7 The students begin to file out of the room behind the tour guide. Simon 8 I only need a few more minutes to figure out what it says… Don’t Wake the Mummy, pp. 1 & 2 (Jack’s Case Study)

This portion of the transcript shows that the context at the point of difficulty did not give any clear clues as to the meaning of the word hieroglyphics. Reading further down the script, to lines 23 and 24, the reader finds an explanation of the word.

240

Tour Guide 23 Now, gather around, students and take a look at these hieroglyphics 24 here. These explain the pharaoh’s relationship to the gods. Don’t Wake the Mummy, p. 1 (Jack’s Case Study)

The meaning of hieroglyphics could be found in the text, but the process of determining

its meaning required the reader to search the text to inductively figure out the meaning.

Jack determined that Patrick would not be able to do this task independently and therefore decided to tell him the meaning of the word. Jack told Patrick the information he needed to continue with the reading task, particularly when he encountered difficulty with which he could not be successful on his own.

Teaching Word Analysis as a Reading Strategy

Jack’s approach to word analysis may be described as a synthetic approach. Jack taught Patrick to look at the individual letters within words first, then familiar chunks or words within the word, then the word as a whole. One of Jack’s main goals for Patrick was for him to become a more fluent reader.

I think fluency is still is a big thing. He has an articulation type issue, like he has

a hard time getting words out sometimes and he’ll - his eyes will actually roll. He

knows what he wants to say but he just can’t say it, it’s like he can’t spit it out, so

I think that might have something to do with the fluency thing too. I think

becoming a more fluent reader will help his speech, I think it’s that language

processing.

Interview #1, 6/20/06

Jack focused on improving Patrick’s knowledge of words to improve his fluency. He

employed word sorts and sight word readings as tools to help focus Patrick’s attention on

whole words. Jack wanted Patrick to become more automatic in his ability to identify

241

words in context. He felt confident in his abilities to analyze the parts of words, but was concerned with how long this process took.

I’ve never really thought about how slowly he does it, he normally gets to the

word, but it might take him 10 seconds, whereas someone else in my class, a

better reader might not be able to get every single word, but they could figure it

out with context or other ways, or they know to skip over and try to figure it out

later, but he is very laborious about doing that.

Interview #1, 6/20/06

When Patrick encountered difficulty while reading words, whether out of context, such as in the sight word readings or words sorts, or within the context of a text, Jack focused Patrick’s attention on the letters and patterns within the word. Jack did this to help Patrick solve the word, but he also wanted Patrick to understand how letters work together in words to make the sounds that they do. Jack was concerned that Patrick had not internalized some of the basic sight words or letter patterns, and he saw how this negatively influenced Patrick’s fluency and comprehension.

He hasn’t picked up on them as naturally as some kids do, and you know, getting

hung up on one word that he should know, that he heard that he should know can

mess up a whole sentence for him.

Interview #2, 7/31/06

Jack used word sorts to draw Patrick’s attention to the constituent parts of words that made up the sounds they produced. Jack engaged Patrick in a series of word sorts over the course of the tutoring sessions focused on vowel sounds. He first had Patrick sort words by short vowel sound, by completing a separate sort for each vowel. Then, he had

242

Patrick compile all of the words into one sort that included a column for each vowel.

Once all the words were sorted into the correct category, they went through each word, discussing how the short vowel could be changed to be long through the addition or deletion of certain letters. An example of an interaction around one of the words follows.

Patrick 1 Ok, net, n-e-t, you could change it to make n-a-t-e. Jack 2 That would be nate, right, but then that would be in the “a” category, right? Patrick 3 Oh, yeah. Jack 4 So how would you still keep it in the e category? Patrick 5 Um, neat. Jack 6 Ok, how would you spell neat? Patrick 7 n-e-e-t Jack 8 Ok, and that would be one way, but that’s not the real way you spell neat, 9 like something is neat. Patrick 10 n-e-i? Jack 11 Ok, that would be another way, but that’s not the real way, either. Patrick 12 n-e-a? Jack 13 Exactly, n-e-a… Patrick 14 T. Jack 15 Ok. Session #10, 7/24/06

This interaction is an example of the synthetic analysis of words in which Jack and

Patrick engaged. In line 1, Patrick attempts to change the spelling of net to make it a long vowel sound. He provides an incorrect response, and Jack’s responses to him in lines 2 and 4 are an example of the way in which he has asked Patrick to analyze words based on their individual sounds. Jack draws his attention to the sounds of the individual letters, and the rest of the interaction focuses on how to spell the word neat. Patrick’s attempts

(lines 7, 10, and 12) indicate that he is focusing on the spelling patterns of the long “e” sound, manipulating them until he comes up with the correct response in line 12.

243

Jack also engaged Patrick in synthetic analysis of words when reading connected text. When Patrick would come to a word he did not know, Jack would typically allow him to try it on his own once, and then intervene with suggestions related to the sounds the letters in the word combined to produce. In the following series of interactions at the point of difficulty, Jack’s comments focus on the individual parts of the words.

Patrick 1 The lazy villagers got incur…incur… Jack 2 Look for vowels together, if there are two vowels together, what does 3 that mean? Patrick 4 In….cor…..incrasingly Jack 5 Now, do you see the two vowels that were together? Patrick 6 Oh… Jack 7 You got the in part and then the second part, the middle part, did you see 8 it? Patrick 9 Crease Jack 10 Uh huh, how did you know that was crease? Patrick 11 Um….well, I don’t know. Jack 12 Well, think about it. Patrick 13 Because I sounded it out. Jack 14 Ok, you sounded it out and what did you see, what letters did you see? Patrick 15 The ea Jack 16 And what does that mean? Patrick 17 It means, well, I don’t know what it means Jack 18 What sound did you say it made? Patrick 19 E Jack 20 Right, so the ea are together, then it makes the e sound, right? Patrick 21 Uh huh Jack 22 in…creas…ing…ly. Why don’t you read that sentence again? 23 Patrick reads the text. [31 seconds] Patrick 24 What’s worse, my stomach has to duh…guh….digest everything I eat. Jack 25 Good, how did you figure out that word? Patrick 26 Because it’s a magic e telling the i to say its name, and then es makes s. Jack 27 Good and what about the g, why is it jest instead of guest. Patrick 28 Because guest wouldn’t have made sense. Jack 29 Good, so it didn’t sound right, so you tried both ways? Patrick 30 Uh huh Lines 1-22: 1 minute, 4 seconds; Lines 24-29: 32 seconds Session #7, 7/17/06

244

As soon as Patrick ran into difficulty, Jack focused his attention on the individual letters

as a method for solving the word (lines 2, 3, 5). In lines 7 and 8, his comments move to

the familiar parts of the word that Patrick knew; however, in line 14, Jack again brings

Patrick’s attention back to the letters and their sounds. In the second interaction, which begins at line 24, Jack asks Patrick how he figured out the word (line 25), and Patrick instantly refers to the letters and their sounds. Jack was focused on ascertaining how

Patrick had known the g would make a soft sound, rather than a hard sound, and he did not notice Patrick’s incorrect analysis of the reason the i in “digest” would be long.

Patrick’s response in line 26, coupled with the evidence from his thinking aloud in line

24, indicated that he was beginning to internalize this synthetic approach to word analysis.

Teaching the Use of Background Knowledge as a Reading Strategy

Jack also chose books that matched Patrick’s interest, and he engaged Patrick in discussions about his background knowledge of the topics. Jack initiated conversations that centered on building or extending Patrick’s background knowledge during the reading of the text. Whereas Jenny was able to confirm or extend information offered by

Ethan, Patrick did not provide such interactions. Jack used questioning to assist Patrick in articulating his background knowledge. Patrick required guidance in the use of background knowledge while reading. In the first interaction below, Patrick has been reading timed fluency passages with which Jack started off each lesson. Following his first try at the passage, Jack discussed some of the words that caused Patrick difficulty.

In lines 5-9, Jack provides Patrick with the background knowledge about trapezes, involving him in the discussion through questioning (lines 8, 9, and 10).

245

Jack 1 Exactly, um, let’s see here, this really hard word, I think this was probably 2 the hardest word in the whole thing, trapeze, and up here I helped you 3 with it, and down here I think you said trampoline. Patrick 4 Uh huh Jack 5 And trapeze and trampoline, you might find them in the circus, but a 6 trapeze have you ever seen, I’m trying to think, a trapeze is when people 7 hold on to the bars and they go flying across, have you ever been to a 8 circus or seen a circus? Patrick 9 Uh huh Jack 10 Have you seen when they grab the bars and go flying across? Patrick 11 Uh huh Jack 12 That’s a trapeze, when they go all around from those metal bars high up 13 into the air, and so that’s what they’re talking about there. Session #1, 6/23/06

In the second interaction, below, Jack takes a different approach to building the

background knowledge needed to understand the passage. Patrick has been reading

Basketball is for Me, a book about a boy who moves to a new school and joins the basketball team. To elicit Patrick’s background knowledge about being new to a school,

Jack involves Patrick in the process from the start through questioning (lines 1 and 3).

Patrick responds that he has no experiences with being new to a school (lines 2 and 4), which Jack already knew. Jack likely used these questions to set Patrick up for the next exchange of questions and responses, which leads Patrick to make a connection to a similar experience in his own life. In lines 5 and 6, Jack offers a possible connection to

Patrick, that of going to kindergarten for the first time. In lines 13 and 14, Jack validates the connection they have made between going to kindergarten and starting a new school.

Jack 1 Have you ever had feelings like that before? Patrick 2 No. Jack 3 Have you ever moved before to a new school? Patrick 4 No. Jack 5 So that might have something to do with it, what about, when you went to 6 kindergarten, do you remember back that far? Patrick 7 Yeah. Jack 8 So were you nervous? 246

Patrick 9 On the first day. Jack 10 So were you like oh my gosh I’m a little bit scared, but were you still kind 11 of eager to go, were you kind of excited and ready? Patrick 12 Yeah. Jack 13 So you have had that experience before, you just had to think about it for a 14 minute. Now read that bottom part and try to figure out why that’s down 15 there. Session #1, 6/23/06

Through questioning, Jack built some background knowledge for Patrick that helped him to understand the story. Though increasing Patrick’s use of his ability to self-monitor was not an explicit goal of Jack’s, he taught Patrick to use it through the incidental discussions they had throughout the text.

Types of Questions asked by Jack

Jack used comprehension monitoring questions in his lessons to check Patrick’s understanding throughout the reading of a text. Jack’s questions were what he referred to as “mean questions,” in which he would ask Patrick the meaning of a word or concept as they read a text. Examples of monitoring questions from each of Jack’s sessions are summarized in the table below.

247

Session #1 Good, eager, do you know what eager means? Do you think he really wanted to go out there and play? Session #2 What’s that mean, he felt sure of himself? Session #3 Yeah, what is an adding machine, because we don’t hear that very much. Do you know what an adding machine is? Session #4 What does encouragement mean? Session #5 Backboard, charging, do you know what charging is? Session #6 Ok, I am going to stop you right now, you did a good job figuring what deposit said, but do you know what it means, too? Session #7 Right, so what does that mean to fend for yourself? Session #8 Do you remember when we talked about that one? Do you remember what it means? Session #10 What does that word slumber mean in the second line? Session #11 What’s that mean if they have a lot of diversity? Session #12 So if a snake is curled up, what does it mean?

Table 4.12: Examples of Jack’s monitoring questions.

Jack had a total of 186 monitoring questions across the lessons. Jack’s monitoring questions included 10 examples of memory monitoring questions, and 176 examples of comprehension monitoring, two of which were summarizing questions, and the remaining

174 monitoring questions he posed to Patrick were “mean questions” in which he asked

Patrick what a word or concept in the text meant. Ninety-four percent of the monitoring questions Jack posed to Patrick were designed to monitor his understanding of word meanings (“mean questions”).

Another category of questions Jack used were managing. Jack’s use of managing questions was an example of the type of instruction Jack used with Patrick. Jack’s approach appeared to be a collaborative one, like Jenny’s, initially, but a deeper analysis revealed that he did dictate what occurred in the lessons, rather than relying on collaboration between him and Patrick. As an example of this, his managing questions

248

were typically rhetorically posed. The following interaction represents the conversation

Jack and Patrick had prior to reading a text they had been reading for several days.

Jack’s questions (lines 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12) are all actually statements, with an “OK?” on the end to obtain agreement from Patrick. Patrick indicates agreement to all of the statements by saying “OK” (lines 2, 5, 8, 11, 13), but the questions were posed to indicate that the decisions had already been made.

Jack 1 And that’s where we are at today, and we’re gonna finish it today, OK? Patrick 2 OK. Jack 3 Then we’re going to talk about the next book that we’re going to be 4 reading, and we’re going to talk about this book a little more, OK? Patrick 5 OK. Jack 6 And I want you to keep doing the same thing we were doing yesterday, try 7 to think of some questions when you’re reading, OK? Patrick 8 OK. Jack 9 So don’t ask me questions about what happened, but ask me about why it 10 happened or what I think, OK? Patrick 11 OK. Jack 12 So keep that in mind as you’re reading, OK? Patrick 13 OK. Session #3, 7/5/06

In Session #10, Jack intentionally implemented a collaborative approach to the preparation of a reader’s theatre performance, as he stated in his reflection,

I had decided to structure the Reader’s Theatre lesson so he would have some

opportunities to take control of his learning and so I wouldn’t dominate the

conversation as much as I did in the first TLI. But, before we even got to the

actual lesson plan he spoke up twice without me prompting him anyway. The first

was when he asked about Stone Fox and the second was when he suggested and

further convinced me to let him work on his story instead of doing the word work

that I had planned...I was glad it happened because it let me know that Patrick

249

does feel comfortable enough now to speak up and also because I was able to

release some responsibility to him, instead of trying to convince him to do the

word work since that is what I had planned.

Session #10 reflection, 7/24/06

This reflection demonstrates the struggle Jack had between the collaborative approach he

wished to implement with Patrick, and the direct approach that he kept seeing in his

teaching. Patrick did resist collaboration, as Jack went on to state in his reflection,

It was obvious to me when listening to the tape that Patrick was uncomfortable in

this role. I think he would have much preferred to have been asked specific

questions about the play. The same was true later in the lesson when I asked

Patrick how we should go about practicing the play. At one point he even asked

me, “What do you mean?” because he wasn’t used to being in such a role of

control…I know that I need to work on this area of my teaching because it was so

difficult for me to just sit back and let him lead the discussion (at least as much as

possible) because I knew that the discussion might be a little more lively if I could

just ask a few more questions. But I think it was a great experience and I

certainly think Patrick will get better at it with more practice.

Session #10 reflection, 7/24/06

My analysis of the data revealed the same realities about Jack’s teaching as did his own analysis of his lesson transcripts. His goal was to use a constructivist approach in his teaching, but because of inexperience on the part of both Jack and Patrick with this approach, it did not play out in his teaching.

250

Literate Identity Shifts and the Teacher-Student Interactions

Patrick’s identity was tough on the outside, and Patrick was reluctant to show any other side except the one that indicated he was a successful reader. Patrick used

“procedural display” to respond to the tasks Jack posed for him. He knew how to do what Jack asked him to do so that it appeared as if he was being successful. Jack knew

Patrick well, having taught him in the third grade, so he was prepared to engage him in activities that would ask him to prove his abilities beyond engaging in the procedures successfully. Jack’s attempts at collaboration with Patrick were designed to develop

Patrick’s independence, and his views of himself as a capable reader and thinker.

In one of their final sessions together, Jack engaged Patrick in the reading of a reader’s theatre script. This was the third time they had read a script together, and part of

Jack’s goal had been to give Patrick more of the responsibility for the learning process

(Lesson #10 reflection). During their discussion about the script, Patrick offered a particularly insightful response to a question Jack had posed about the meaning of a phrase in the text, and Jack reflected following the lesson,

I think the highlight of my entire time tutoring occurred toward the end of my

reading to him. At one point in the story, the narrator uses the phrase, “the bad

guys’ bad guy.” I stopped to make sure Patrick understood what this meant

because it seemed to be a rather tricky concept, even though it wasn’t completely

necessary to understand the story. Well, after a minute or so discussion, Patrick

came up with an idea that to me was absolutely brilliant. He proposed that a bad

guy’s bad guy would actually be a good guy AND he gave me the example of how

a police officer would be a criminal’s bad guy because he/she would be the bad

251

guy’s opposition (and therefore be bad in the criminal’s mind.).

As this was one of their last sessions, this is an example of the progress Patrick had made

towards independently constructing meaning from texts, which was a goal of Jack’s for

Patrick. In this session, Patrick successfully integrated the two aspects to his literate

identity that he had explored throughout the summer – procedural display and

independent thinking. By knowing what was expected of him and how to form his

responses in the way Jack expected, Patrick was able to think freely and clearly

communicate his thoughts about the story. For Jack, this was the ultimate goal, and he

was pleased that Patrick had been able to do this.

I think this is the type of thinking that all teachers strive to develop in their

students. And here was Patrick, one of the students that struggled the most in my

reading class this year, coming up with such a deep thought I doubt any other

student in my class would have come up with. To me, this was an absolute

breakthrough.

To analyze the ways in which the interactions between Patrick and Jack allowed

Patrick’s identity to develop to one that was more confident in thinking independently as

a reader, I chose to microanalyze a session from earlier in the tutoring process.

Reviewing my field notes, I noticed that I had noted how much more engaged and

independent Patrick seemed during the fifth session as opposed to the previous sessions.

After I reviewed the session again, I saw evidence of both procedural display and

independent meaning construction in Patrick’s responses. In this session, Jack was encouraging Patrick to ask questions as he read the text, a self-monitoring strategy he had

252

been gradually releasing responsibility of to him over the last three sessions. Based on these reasons, I determined that this session would be an appropriate one to microanalyze to understand the connections between the interactions and identity.

After watching this session several times, I returned to a 10-minute portion of the lesson in which there were several turns between Patrick and Jack. These conversational turns represented Patrick’s independent responses as well as Jack’s prompted responses.

In this segment, Jack explains to Patrick that he wants to ask questions of himself as he reads, and Patrick begins reading the text, Basketball is for Me. The transcript follows.

Jack 1 Ok, we have a lot of time for reading today, so we Patrick is 2 should be able to finish. All right, the same thing that leaning on his 3 we’ve been doing, try to think of a question to ask either hand, sits up in 4 of yourself or someone else. his chair as Jack slides the book over to him. Patrick 5 Ok Nods Patrick 6 Defense skills… Leans into the text. Jack 7 Oops, remember the i-v-e at the end? Patrick 8 Defensive Jack 9 Defensive skills, right, it kind of means the same thing, 10 but it’s just a little bit different. Patrick reads on. Jack 11 Infer with the dribble? 11:38 Patrick 12 In…ter….fere Does not look up. Jack 13 Interfere with the dribble, good. Did you think of a 14 question you could ask? Patrick 15 Um…what does when you’re in a good guarding Does not look 16 stance? up. Jack 17 Ok, so what is a good guarding stance exactly? Patrick 18 Uh huh Jack 19 Ok, were there any clues on the page? Patrick 20 Um….no. Looks at the text Jack 21 There were a couple, there were two about where your 22 hands should be. Do you remember what they said 23 about where your hands should be? Patrick 24 They should be high. Leans head on 253

hand Jack 25 Yeah, one should be high… Jack points to the text. Patrick 26 Um……and one should be low Jack 27 And these two girls, it looks like their hands are spread Glances at Jack, 28 out, one should be high and one should be low. And looks back at 29 probably if you know a lot about sports, usually your text. 30 knees should be bent, your legs are supposed to be kind 31 of spread apart so you are ready to move right away. Patrick 32 Uh huh Jack 33 Good, so you kind of have to use what they gave us and 34 what you already know about sports to help you figure 35 out what a good guard position is. Patrick reads on, Patrick 36 What does shuffle and slide mean? Looking at the picture, looks at Jack when he says the question, looks back at the text. Jack 37 Ok, what does it mean? Patrick 38 Well, I know what they are. Jack 39 Oh, ok, just for someone else? Patrick 40 Yeah Jack 41 Ok, does it mean kind of like hopping to one side or Looks up at 42 another, jumping, Patrick, Patrick 43 No, not jumping, well shuffling kind of means sliding, Looks down as 44 but you don’t lift your feet. he talks, then up past Jack. Jack 45 Oh, ok, so you don’t lift your feet. Ok Patrick yawns, begins reading. Sitting up, leaning over text. Leans on hand. Jack 46 Did you think of a question for the other page? Patrick 47 Uh, why is it if you make five fouls you can’t play? Does not look up. Jack 48 Ok, and why do you think? Patrick 49 Well, because if you keep on making the fouls, then Looks up, but 50 there’s no point of the game because you keep on not at Jack. 51 fouling. Jack 52 I think, so they try to limit people. Ok. On these two Yawns. Does 53 pages, try to think of one why question, why did this not look at 254

54 happen, or why, did this, or why do you think question. Patrick as he talks. Patrick 55 Ok Patrick reads on. Jack helps him with one word. Jack 56 Good, did you have any why questions on that page? Patrick 57 Why did Miss Abnee promise them that they were 58 gonna play a game? Jack 59 Good question, I think probably because they got sick No eye contact, 60 of practicing all the time, so they kept asking her, and eyes remain on 61 finally she promised them. Do you think that’s really page. 62 why? Patrick 63 Um…well maybe they were so good that they were Looks up at 64 ready to play a game? Jack. Jack 65 Ok, so she just decided that they were so good, that they 66 were ready/ Patrick reads on. His reading is slow but smooth. He leans on his hand. Jack 67 Good, any questions from that page/ Patrick 68 Do you think that um….what’s her name? Leaning on arm. Jack 69 I don’t remember now, it was on the very first page Patrick 70 Janie Flips back through the book, Jack 71 Do you think that Janie wants to go to the basketball Patrick looks up, 72 game? Wait, it said that she did. past Jack. Patrick 73 It did? Jack 74 Uh huh, here. Patrick 75 It says the game was so exciting. Jack 76 Yeah, so I think she probably did want to go to the 77 basketball game, right? Why do you think the game was 78 so exciting? Patrick 79 Um, because her favorite team won. Closes his eyes as he talks. Jack 80 Ok, maybe because she got to see her favorite team Patrick looks up, 81 play, maybe because she likes basketball so much, she past Jack. 82 got to see players that have been players their whole 83 life. Session #5, 7/12/06

255

Patrick’s attempts at constructive thinking were built upon his use of procedural

display, leading him to the kind of success Jack discussed previously. The first 45 lines

of the segment represent Patrick’s use of procedural display, the first 26 of which were dependent upon Jack’s guidance. For example, in lines 15 and 16 Patrick provided a question based on the text he had read. Jack proceeded to lead Patrick through an explanation of the question’s answer using an unbalanced dialogue. Jack had five turns in this interaction, three of which were two or more lines. One of his turns was five lines long. In comparison, Patrick had five turns in this interaction, all of which were one line in length. Patrick responded to Jack’s questions and statements with answers that he was led to through Jack’s statements. By responding with few words, Patrick allowed Jack to talk more, providing him with more information to provide a response that would be acceptable to Jack. In line 25, Jack says, “One should be high…” dropping off at the end.

Patrick responds in line 26, “Um…and one should be low.” After this response, Patrick makes attempts at more independent thinking related to the text, though still within the parameters of procedural display.

A series of responses in which Patrick offered up the question for a page he had just read on his own, without prompting from Jack, display Patrick’s independent use of procedural display. In line 36 Patrick offers a question related to the page he had just read without any prompting from Jack. In addition, he explains the meaning of the question and its answer with a response that is not dependent on Jack’s explanations.

Although this represents his independent use of self-questioning, I still considered it procedural display as it showed Patrick correctly using a strategy Jack had been teaching him, but not for the purposes Jack intended. Jack’s goal was for Patrick to use questions

256

to monitor his understanding as he read, but this series of responses indicates the correct

procedural use of questioning while reading, but not an internalization of the strategy.

Constructive thinking was an aspect of literate identity that Patrick was working

to adopt throughout this interaction, as is evidenced by his responses that represent both

independence, as well as dependence on Jack’s guidance. As stated previously,

constructive thinking was not an aspect of his identity that Patrick had brought with him

to the study, but one that Jack wanted him to take on. The questions Patrick formed in the

second half of this interaction represented divergent questions with no right answer (lines

57-58). In these questions/responses, Patrick used questioning to monitor his own

interpretations of the story. He offered explanations for the questions’ answers based on

his own thinking (lines 63-64), rather than just stating that he knew the answer already, as

he did at earlier points in the segment (line 38). He was not only applying questioning in

a way that showed application and understanding of the way Jack had taught him to use

it, but he was also showing that he was beginning to think constructively about the texts

he was reading. This was the goal that Jack had for him. Patrick ebbed back and forth

between independence and dependence in his use of constructive thinking. In this way,

he began to take on constructive thinking as part of his literate identity. The session

microanlalyzed was from the fifth session of 13 total sessions. By the end of the tutoring

sessions, in the 10th session, Patrick was providing responses to the text that represented constructive thinking, as in the discussion at the beginning of this section.

This interaction showed a pivotal moment in Patrick’s shift from dependent to

independent thinking. An example discussed earlier in this discussion, from the second

session, illustrates how Patrick initially relied primarily on dependent thinking in his

257

interactions with Jack. When Patrick was asked to share questions related to the text he was reading, he was unsure of what to do and how to proceed. He depended on Jack’s guidance to assist him in understanding what was expected. The transcript from this example is reproduced below.

258

Once Patrick understood what was expected of him, he was able to generate questions related to the text. His questions were modeled on those Jack had provided him and contained answers that were found explicitly in the text. The microanalysis showed how

Patrick began to incorporate independent thinking in his interactions with Jack, by providing questions which went beyond literal to inferential interpretations of the text.

Patrick continued to make comments representing independent thinking across his interactions with Jack. This example, also discussed previously, illustrates how, in the sessions following the one microanalyzed, Patrick continued to incorporate constructive thinking in his interactions with Jack.

His question (line 1) is inferential, as opposed to his literal questions in the previous examples. In addition, Jack’s response, “Well, how do you think” is a change from his previous responses in which he provided Patrick with the answer to the question. Along with the example from Session #10 that Jack mentioned as “brilliant” (discussed at the beginning of this section), evidence can be seen for Patrick’s continued use of independent thinking across the tutoring sessions.

Coupled with thinking more constructively about texts, Patrick displayed more confidence in his reading abilities as he entered third grade. He mentioned in his third

259

interview that his grades had been better in reading and that he was able to read longer chapter books as a result of the tutoring over the summer (Interview #3, 10/9/06). The still dominant aspect of his literate identity, however, was procedural display, or put another way, “doing school.” By mentioning his good grades and ability to do better on tests in reading, Patrick indicated that what he had taken away from the summer tutoring were increased skills as a reader that enabled him to be successful in school. His fourth grade teacher discussed Patrick’s performance on tests as a measure of his abilities as a reader (Interview, 10/9/06), as well, and an observation of her classroom (10/9/06) showed that procedural display of reading processes was valued in the daily routines. In this sense, Patrick was not given opportunities beyond the summer tutoring to continue to develop the constructive thinking side of his literate identity.

Summary

The sections above have discussed the dyad of Jack and Patrick. Patrick was a

student who presented a positive view of himself as a reader, although Jack identified

him as the lowest reader in his class. Through the interactions, Jack introduced

constructive thinking to Patrick as an aspect of his literate identity. Patrick resisted this

adoption, but by the end of the sessions demonstrated use of constructive thinking while

reading.

Summary

In this chapter, I have presented the major findings from the data analysis.

Presented on a case-by-case basis, characteristics of the students, teachers, and their tutoring sessions were discussed. Categories found in their interactions were then

260

presented. Finally, findings from microanalysis of individual sessions were presented as they related to the developing literate identities of the students. In chapter 5, a cross-case analysis of the data will be presented, synthesizing the findings from the data analysis across the cases. The results will be discussed in chapter 6.

261

CHAPTER 5

CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS

Cross-case analysis of the data was conducted for each of the research questions.

The research questions addressed in this study were:

1. What is the perspective of the teacher on the assessment, evaluation, and

instruction of struggling readers? How does this perspective influence the

interactions between teacher and student in the tutoring situation?

2. What is the nature of the interactions between teachers and students within a one-

to-one tutoring program for struggling readers?

3. How do the interactions between teacher and student influence the shifting literate

identities of students identified as struggling readers?

In presenting the results of the cross-case analysis of the data, I will identify the

convergence and divergence of the results across the cases in terms of each of the

research questions. In the first section, cross-case analysis of the teachers’ views on

struggling readers will be presented. The next section will present the results of the cross-case analysis of the types of interactions that occurred in the sessions. In the final section, the identity shifts undergone by the students across cases will be discussed.

262

Teachers’ Views on Struggling Readers

The first research question concerned the teachers’ views on struggling readers, in particular the ways in which they described the assessment, evaluation, and instruction of struggling readers. Data were analyzed for themes and patterns related to the teachers’ views on these aspects of struggling readers, and results for the individual cases were reported in chapter 4. In this section, I will present the results of cross case analysis of the teachers’ views on struggling readers and the assessment, evaluation, and instruction of these students.

Teachers’ Descriptions of Struggling Readers

This section will describe the teachers’ descriptions of struggling readers, providing a cross-case analysis of the responses they provided to interview questions. As is summarized in Table 5.1, Jenny and Annie both described struggling readers according to a list of specific skills that they would lack. Nora and Jack mentioned specific skills, but also described struggling readers in terms of their motivation, confidence, and performance in relation to their peers.

Struggling Lack Lack Lack Do not Lack Read below readers… word comprehension fluency use the motivation, grade level solving skills cueing confidence, skills systems enthusiasm for reading Jenny X X X X Annie X X Nora X X Jack X X X X X

Table 5.1: Teachers’ descriptions of struggling readers.

263

When asked why they chose the particular students they did for this study, each of the

teachers’ reasons matched the descriptions they provided of struggling readers. The

descriptions the teachers provided of struggling readers were related to their descriptions

of the instruction, assessment, and evaluation of struggling readers, as will be discussed

below.

Teachers’ Beliefs about Instruction for Struggling Readers

This section will discuss the teachers’ beliefs about instruction for struggling

readers, as stated in the interviews. First, their views of instruction will be summarized,

and then I will discuss how these views of instruction were reflected in their teaching

over the summer. Table 5.2 provides a summary of the teachers’ beliefs about instruction for struggling readers.

Instruction Balanced Individualized based Individualized for struggling on specific needs of based on readers the student student should be… interests and motivations Jenny X X Annie X Nora X Jack X

Table 5.2: Teachers’ descriptions of instruction for struggling readers.

Jenny was the only teacher of the 4 that clearly indicated that instruction should be

balanced to address all areas of literacy development. Within the university course, the

teachers had been taught to address all of the areas of literacy instruction represented in

264

the Literacy Lesson Framework (familiar reading, guided reading, word work, writing,

and book sharing). By addressing all the areas of the framework, the tendency to focus

only on student’s most critical areas of need was avoided. It was stressed within course

discussions that teachers should provide instruction in several areas of reading and

writing, so as not to risk improvement in one area of need at the expense of another. This

balanced view of instruction was articulated in her answer to the question, “How do you

define reading?”

I was talking to my husband the other day, and I said, to become more fluent you

have to read, but to have more vocabulary you have to read and to practice

questioning you have to read, and when you want to be a better runner you have

to run, but it's not always easy, and so when you're reading, you have to practice

reading by reading, but you have to always be focusing on your expression and

comprehension and reading between the lines, and understanding all the different

parts that play into it, it's so complex, it's not just teaching a child a word that this

is, it's not just reading the words on the page (Interview #1, 6/14/06).

Jenny’s description of struggling readers, discussed previously, represented four areas of literacy development, another indication that she considered several factors in working with struggling readers.

Jenny also felt that instruction should be tied to student needs. “Your decisions are based on your student needs and your instruction is based on what you have seen from them in the past” (Interview #1, 6/14/06). Like Jenny, the other teachers also felt that instruction was something that should be explicitly tied to student needs or interests, based on assessment data. This belief was revealed in the first interview after

265

participation in the discussions, readings, and assignments that were a part of the

university course. An emphasis throughout the course was the assessment-instruction

process, through which we discussed how assessment should directly inform instructional

decisions. The views of the teachers on the type of instruction needed by struggling

readers reflected this principle because they all focused on the need for instruction to

reflect the needs of the students.

The teachers’ views of instruction played out in their teaching over the course of

the tutoring sessions. Jenny paid close attention to balance in her lesson plans, making it a priority to include all components of the Literacy Lesson Framework (Field notes,

7/5/06). Jenny’s application of the Literacy Lesson Framework was a result of the change in her understanding about the type of instruction needed by struggling readers as a result of discussions in class. “I think my views on reading are similar to when we started but how I go about teaching it has changed a lot” (Interview #2, 7/24/06). The Literacy

Lesson Framework provided Jenny with a structure to provide instruction in all areas of reading and writing to her student. In a written reflection completed during the university course, Jenny reflected on how the required readings had changed her views on the way struggling readers should be taught. “Often I have thought that intervention should focus on the areas of weakness for a struggling reader, however it is important not to just focus on what the child struggles with, but to develop each of these three important aspects of reading” (Reflection #2, 5/24/06). As evidenced by Jenny’s lesson plans, this was a change in thinking that Jenny incorporated into her teaching throughout the summer.

266

In contrast, Jack used the Literacy Lesson Framework flexibly, emphasizing components that were connected to Patrick’s weaknesses in reading, such as the word work and familiar reading component (Field notes, 7/5/06). Annie covered each portion of the framework in her sessions, but gave primary attention to those components that directly addressed fluency and comprehension, two areas of concern for Maggie (Field notes, 7/5/06). Jack and Annie employed the Framework, but because they valued placing attention on specific areas of need when instructing struggling readers, did not emphasize each part as equitably as Jenny.

Nora was one teacher whose instruction did not strictly follow her stated beliefs.

Although Nora stated that she believed that instruction should be tied to student interests and motivations, the books she selected for the tutoring sessions were both too difficult and not reflective of the interests Matthew stated in his interest inventories and interviews. The list of books chosen by Nora was discussed in the individual case study.

For the purposes of the cross-case analysis, Nora’s selection of books that were beyond

Matthew’s instructional level provides a discrepant case as compared to the other teachers. Further, Nora did not state that instruction should be tailored to students’ specific areas of need, but her instructional decisions, such as the decision to focus on word analysis work, reflected a consideration of Matthew’s areas of need. Nora displayed

an inconsistency between her stated beliefs and her instructional practices that was not

found in the other cases.

267

Teachers’ Beliefs about Assessment for Struggling Readers

This section will describe the teachers’ views on assessment for struggling readers, as well as the ways in which their views were reflected in their use of assessment results. Table 5.3 below summarizes the teachers’ views on assessment for struggling readers.

Assessment for Provide broad Provide specific struggling understanding information about a readers should… of the student student’s specific strengths as a reader and weaknesses Jenny X Annie X Nora X Jack X

Table 5.3: Teachers’ descriptions of assessment for struggling readers.

Assessment was viewed by all of the teachers as one part of the process of instructing a student. As mentioned previously, this was a principle discussed in class. Jack was the only teacher that mentioned the need for assessment to provide information about the specific abilities of the student. The other teachers felt that assessment should provide them with a broad overview of the student as a reader. The university course required that teachers complete assessments from four specific areas of reading (comprehension, word recognition, spelling/writing, and fluency) and two assessments that addressed multiple areas of reading (a formal assessment and the QRI-IV). See Appendix G for the rubric used to evaluate the case studies. The university course provided a perspective on assessment that addressed both views represented by the teachers.

268

Comparing these results with the teachers’ views on instruction for struggling readers, a discrepancy can be seen in the ways in which the teachers view assessment and instruction. Annie and Nora both stated that instruction should be based on students’ specific areas of need, but their view of assessment was as a way to thoroughly get to know students as readers. Jenny’s and Jack’s views of assessment and instruction seem consistent. Jenny emphasized the importance of balanced instruction, and her views on assessment aligned with this view because she saw assessment as a way to get to know the student as a reader. Jack felt that instruction should be closely linked with assessment, and he valued assessments that provided him in-depth information about specific skills.

The views of assessment that the teachers expressed in their interviews were also reflected in the ways in which they applied assessment data in their instruction. The

Qualitative Reading Inventory-IV was an assessment that all of the teachers learned to use through the class. It was also required as part of the case study assignment for the class. Jenny, Annie, and Nora all described this assessment as one they valued because of the thorough scope it provided concerning a student’s reading abilities (Interview data). They referred to the QRI-IV as the assessment that they referred to throughout the tutoring sessions for information about their student’s strengths and weaknesses

(Interview #2). However, Jack viewed the QRI-IV as too broad, and mentioned in both interviews that he valued informal assessments that focused on specific skills, such as spelling or word identification (Interview data). Jack did complete the assessments required for the course, but he did not rely on the information provided by the QRI-IV.

His instruction reflected an emphasis on specific skills over a balance of literacy skills.

269

Teachers’ Beliefs about Evaluation for Struggling Readers

In this section, the teachers’ views on evaluation for struggling readers will be discussed. Table 5.4 below summarizes the teachers’ views on the evaluation of struggling readers, as provided in their interviews.

Evaluation for Be shared Compare Be based on struggling with students students with students’ readers their peers interests, should… needs, and preferences Jenny X Annie X Nora X Jack X X

Table 5.4: Teachers’ descriptions of evaluation for struggling readers.

Jack’s views on the evaluation of struggling readers are consistent with his other views on struggling readers, as stated in his interviews. Jack felt that evaluation of assessment results should be used to compare students with their peers according to academic strengths and weaknesses (interview data). Jack’s views on assessment and instruction were relevant to his views on evaluation. By looking at a student’s specific skill areas and tailoring instruction to those areas identified as weak, Jack was able to compare his

students to others. Evidence of Jack practicing his stated beliefs about the evaluation of

struggling readers was found through statements such as “He was probably one of the

poorest readers in my class” (Interview #1, 6/20/06), indicated that Jack had selected

Patrick based on his performance in relation to his peers.

270

The inconsistency that had been found between Nora’s stated views of the instruction of struggling readers, the university course content, and her actual instructional practices was also found in examining her views on the evaluation of struggling readers. Nora felt that evaluation should be based on qualitative factors such as students’ preferences, reading habits, and lives outside of school, with no direct tie to assessment of reading skill. This view was consistent with her previously stated views of the assessment and instruction of struggling readers, because they also related to qualitative factors. This view of evaluation was not reflected in her actual interactions with Matthew. As stated previously, Nora did not select books that were congruent with

Matthew’s stated areas of interest or preferences. However, Nora did give consideration to his life outside of school by inquiring about his involvement in sports over the summer, and by referencing his relationship with his grandmother as a model of good reading. Within the university course, students had been instructed to make evaluation decisions based on assessment data, including assessments of specific skills as well as interest inventories, attitude surveys, and background information. Nora focused on the latter, with less attention given to the data she had gathered on Matthew’s strengths and weaknesses.

In sum, the teachers’ views on the assessment, evaluation, and instruction of struggling readers were not consistently reflected in the instructional interactions they had with their students. In the next section, I will discuss the convergences and divergences in the data across the types of interactions that occurred.

271

Types of Interactions

Using the methods described in chapter 3, my analysis of the data found two

broad categories of interactions across the dyads that were pertinent to my inquiry --

those around the point of difficulty and those focused on questioning. This section will

focus on these interactions in detail, discussing how the interactions played out across the

teachers’ sessions. The use of “teacher-student interactions” is intentional, as the focus

was on the teacher’s role in the interactions. First, interactions that occurred at the point of difficulty will be described. Next, I will discuss question types employed by the teachers in their instruction.

Point of Difficulty

At students’ points of difficulty while reading, the teachers initiated a variety of

moves aimed at getting the student back on track. These moves fell under the broad

categories of scaffolding instruction and teaching reading strategy use. The following sections will describe each of these broad categories and the ways in which they were used across the cases.

Scaffolding Instruction

This section will discuss how the teachers scaffolded instruction for their students,

specifically using modeling and explicit teaching in their instruction to structure students’

learning experiences.

All 4 of the teachers in this study were concerned with encouraging their students

to be independent as readers, both in the short-term setting of the tutoring sessions and in the long-term setting of their future classrooms and lives. During the first interview with each of the teachers, they stated the goals they had for their students.

272

Jenny I just hope that I can kind of help him gain some ground to be where his peers are to use, um, the content area, one of the focuses I want is expository comprehension, and so that he can use, um, reading to learn, um, in fourth grade too because I think the workload just gets harder, and um, so just to help him in areas, um, other areas of school not just in reading but across the board for him, too. Annie So I really hope from seeing the assessments so far, that she will be more confident, and more capable of reading the content area books and comprehending them. Nora I guess more of a positive approach, I'm thinking generally here, just a positive approach to reading, you know, being more confident, you know I think the fact that he knows he has this knowledge in the back of his mind that he's been on an IEP, he struggled. Jack I think working with him a little bit on choosing books, or like how to do that. A book that interests them, and show him, you know, there are this many books from these many different libraries on this sport or this person if he gets interested in a person, or these animals, or um whatever.

Table 5.5: Teachers’ goals for their students.

Each of these goals relates to independence. Being more confident as a reader,

reading content area books, and selecting books for independent reading are all skills that are characteristic of an independent reader. During the first interviews, the teachers mentioned that one of the ways they would be evaluating their students’ progress would be by assessing the degree to which they acted independently as readers in their classrooms in the fall. Annie mentioned that she would look for Maggie’s ability to answer comprehension questions and monitor her own comprehension, Jenny mentioned that she would look for Ethan’s ability to use reading strategies independently as he read,

Nora mentioned that she would like to see Matthew reading more books on his own, and

Jack mentioned that he would like to see Patrick selecting more challenging books to read

independently (Interview #1 data, 6/14/06 and 6/20/06). In the tutoring sessions, the

273

short-term goal of encouraging independence in reading was manifested in the act of

scaffolding instruction. When the students reached points of difficulty in their reading,

one of the ways in which the teacher responded was through the use of scaffolding.

Teachers employed scaffolding moves in various combinations and at various points in

the lessons to assist the student in moving forward. Categories that emerged across the

cases related to scaffolding instruction were modeling and explicit teaching.

Modeling as an instructional scaffold. Modeling was used to demonstrate to the

students how to work through difficulty when engaged in reading tasks. Teachers were

also, in a sense, role models of good reading to the students they worked with, and data showed that the students indeed felt this way about their teachers. Two of the students,

Ethan and Patrick, mentioned during their interviews that they felt that their teachers,

Jenny and Jack, were people they saw as good readers. Just as the teachers were models of what it meant to be a good reader, they also acted as models for the students to assist them in working through difficulty and acquiring new knowledge. Modeling is an aspect of scaffolding because through the use of modeling at the point of difficulty, the teachers were able to guide the students to be successful at an unfamiliar task.

Modeling was used as an instructional scaffold in Jack, Annie, and Jenny’s

sessions. Examples of modeling were found in eight of Jack’s sessions, three of Annie’s

sessions, and five of Jenny’s sessions. There were no examples of modeling found in

Nora’s sessions. As has been stated, Nora did not feel comfortable with instructing a

student in reading skills in a one-to-one situation (Interview data). As a middle school

teacher, she did not have opportunities to work on basic reading skills with students. The

other teachers were teachers of younger children, and therefore had experience working

274

on basic reading skills. Although Nora did not act as a model of reading skills for

Matthew, he did see her as a model of good reading (Interview data). Nora’s modeling was not observable as was the other teachers’, but Matthew took note of her habits as a reader, and his statement that she was someone he saw as a good reader indicated that

Nora was indeed a model for Matthew.

One of the ways in which the teachers used modeling to scaffold learning for the students was by demonstrating behaviors associated with successful reading. For example, during Jack and Patrick’s ninth session together, they were rehearsing a reader’s theatre script immediately prior to performing it. Jack was encouraging Patrick to practice difficult parts, but Patrick was reluctant to do so. Jack modeled the importance of practicing by warming up with one of his parts, in which he stumbled on a word. His comment, “Oh, that wasn’t very good, I am glad I practiced so that I could warm up my voice,” was followed by a rereading of the problematic line in the script. This is an example of the use of modeling to demonstrate behaviors associated with good reading.

Annie used modeling to assist Maggie with a task, engaging in the tasks she was expecting Maggie to do, asking her to join in, then allowing her to perform it on her own.

For example, during a set of repeated readings, Annie first read with Maggie, then alternated stanzas of a poem with Maggie, then asked Maggie to read on her own

(Session #6). Another example of modeling from Annie’s sessions included her use of modeling to clear up misunderstandings formed during a previous lesson. Annie used

Anticipation Guides to structure Maggie’s comprehension of texts. Following the first use of one, Annie was not satisfied that Maggie understood the procedures, so she chose

275

to model how to complete the task at the beginning of the next lesson (Session #5).

Annie used modeling to scaffold Maggie’s learning at points where the tasks were too

difficult for her to complete on her own.

In Jenny and Ethan’s fifth session together, Jenny used modeling to assist Ethan

in understanding how she wanted him to complete a task. She completed each step of the

task, narrating her process as Ethan observed. When Ethan was then asked to complete the task independently, he was successful (Lesson #5 reflection). Jenny also used modeling throughout the sessions whenever she made an error when reading aloud or writing in front of Ethan. She would acknowledge the error, then make a statement such as, “Teachers make mistakes, too” (Session #3) or “I noticed it did not make sense”

(Session #5). Modeling was used as an instructional scaffold when it was employed at points of difficulty to help the student understand and be successful with tasks.

Explicit teaching as an instructional scaffold. When a student would encounter difficulty while reading aloud, the teachers employed explicit teaching to focus the student’s attention on the error. Noticing, explaining, and telling were used by the

teachers to guide the students’ work through points of difficulty. Noticing was used to

point out successful use of a strategy, or praise a student for a job well done. Explaining was used when the student did not understand a word, task, or concept, and either attempts at solving the problem independently failed or the teacher could see that the difficulty was beyond what the student was able to do with guidance. Telling was used to give students the knowledge they needed in order to proceed with the task. Telling goes beyond scaffolding in the sense that it does not give responsibility for the learning to the

276

student, and in fact takes it away. However, telling was used by these teachers when students reached points of difficulty as a way to explicitly tell the student the answer and move on with the lesson.

Explicit teaching: Used by the teacher to focus the student’s attention on a point of difficulty

Noticing Explaining Telling

T: “I noticed that T: “The author wrote T: “That word says…” you…” that because…”

Figure 5.1: Explicit teaching used by teachers at students’ points of difficulty.

Explaining a concept, noticing a student’s use of reading strategies, and telling information played an important role in how the teacher would scaffold the instruction so that the student could continue to be successful. Data from lesson plan reflections showed the extensive thought and care that went into planning lessons that would meet the student’s needs, but that at times it was necessary to depart from the plan to meet the student’s needs more effectively. As Jenny acknowledged, “As a teacher, it is very important to be flexible” (Lesson #4 reflection, 6/28/06), and the teachers had to be able to adjust their plans when the student met with difficulty. The teachers employed explicit 277

teaching at times when it was clear that students were having difficulty, or when the

student had done something well that warranted special mention. In this way, explaining,

noticing, and telling played a role in how the teachers moved the scaffolds when

necessary. At times, it was necessary to provide additional scaffolding, as when concepts

were explained to students. At other times, a student’s ability to operate independent of

the scaffolds was noticed.

Annie’s use of noticing was discussed in detail in her individual case study.

Annie used noticing to point out Maggie’s successful use of reading strategies that she

had emphasized in the lessons. As has been discussed, Annie brought a definition of

reading as comprehension to the sessions, which was in contrast to the definitions of

reading Maggie valued. By using noticing as a way to focus Maggie on the strategies she

wanted her to use, Annie was incorporating her perspective on reading into the lessons.

Within just one of her sessions, Nora used telling nine times. The pattern Nora followed when Matthew encountered difficulty has been discussed. In this pattern, Nora would focus Matthew’s attention on a miscue by pointing to it, covering up letters and chunks in the word, and finally telling him the word, if it was not one he could get on his own. The use of telling was necessary when Matthew encountered difficulty, as the books she selected were beyond his instructional level. Matthew was unable to pronounce many of the words on his own, so Nora had to tell them to him in order for the reading to be able to move ahead.

Jack used all three methods to focus Patrick’s attention at points of difficulty. He explained confusions, noticed Patrick’s successful use of constructive thinking and word analysis, and told him what words meant or said when Patrick was unable to figure them

278

out on his own. The examples discussed in the individual case study reveal how Jack used explaining, noticing, and telling to focus Patrick’s attention on points of difficulty.

Jack was the only teacher who used all three examples of explicit teaching in combination consistently. Jack’s dialogue dominated the interactions, as in the example from the second session below, in which Patrick’s turns are all “Uh huh.”

Jack 1 You got most of these right today, the ones through and thought, but you 2 self corrected yourself, and you said it very quick, Patrick 3 Uh huh Jack 4 So it was almost like your mouth said it too quick. Patrick 5 Uh huh Jack 6 And I think you got example this time Patrick 7 Uh huh Jack 8 Last time you said explain, and this time you did say being again for 9 begin, but look how close those words are, they’re very close. Patrick 10 Uh huh Session #2, 7/3/06

A shift in Patrick’s role in the interactions can be seen by the seventh session however, as

Patrick offers more dialogue when he is asked a question by Jack (lines 3 and 4). In addition, the way in which Jack poses the question to Patrick is more collaborative (lines

1 and 2).

Jack 1 How did you know that this word was rinds, because when I first saw it I 2 thought it was rinds (short i). Patrick 3 Well, because there’s not an e to make the I say its name, and if you think 4 of kinds, it makes the same sound. Jack 5 Ok, so you saw it, and you said in your mind, it looks just like kinds, so 6 the I says its name. Patrick 7 Uh huh Session #7, 7/17/06

In Jenny’s sessions, I found two examples of telling, two examples of noticing, and 10 examples of explaining. Jenny used explaining differently than the other teachers, however. Consistent with her collaborative approach to instruction, Jenny involved

279

Ethan’s responses when providing an explanation of a concept. In the following

transcript, Jenny and Ethan are reading the book Pink and Say (Polacco, 1994), which includes vernacular language that caused Ethan difficulty while reading aloud.

Julie 1 Oh! Look at this “bein.” Is that a word we use? Evan 2 No. Julie 3 What has the author done in this story that you’re noticing? Evan 4 He’s left off the g? Julie 5 Ok, why would he leave off the g? Didn’t his teacher tell him it’s b-e-i-n-g? Evan 6 Probably he um the guy that wounded could be saying it and could have 7 left off the g. Julie 8 Yeah, when we talk do we always say being? Evan 9 No. Julie 10 Sometimes we say a shortened form of the word. So that’s what this author 11 did, she made it sound like these people were really talking. So she wrote 12 it that way. Session #2, 6/21/06

Rather than explaining the concept to Ethan directly, Jenny uses questioning (lines 1, 3,

5, 8) to elicit his prior knowledge about the use of shortened forms of words in language.

At the end of the interaction, in line 10, Jenny provides a short explanation to summarize what they had discussed, reinforcing the reasons for using vernacular language for Ethan.

Explicit teaching was used by all of the teachers to draw students back to the goals for the lesson for their learning to be successful. In addition, the data showed that the teachers used noticing, explaining, and telling to give students more confidence as readers by pointing out what they had done well during a lesson, or by providing them with information they needed when reading became frustrating.

Teaching Strategy Use

This section will discuss the interactions that were categorized as teaching strategy use to the students. When students encountered difficulty, teachers would teach the use of strategies the students could use to monitor their reading. These moves 280

involved initiating, explaining, and extending students’ use of reading strategies for

pronouncing unknown words, comprehending text, or reading fluently. As was

mentioned earlier, the teachers in this study made it a priority to teach their students to be

more independent as readers. One of the ways in which the teachers taught their students

independence as readers was through the use of reading strategies, specifically word

analysis, use of context clues, and use of background knowledge. Rereading occurred

primarily in Nora and Matthew’s case, so it will not be discussed in this section.

Teaching word analysis as a reading strategy. All 4 of the teachers in this study

coached their students in the use of word analysis. As struggling readers, this was an area

of need for each of them. Evidence was found in all of Jenny and Jack’s sessions, four of

Annie’s sessions and seven of Nora’s sessions. Jenny and Jack’s use of word analysis

represented two distinct approaches to teaching word analysis. Jenny’s approach may be

described as analytical, while Jack’s approach may be described as synthetic. Jenny approached word solving from a whole to part approach, in which she focused first on the word, then on chunking the word, then on the individual letters. There were 25 examples of Jenny asking Ethan to chunk words into familiar parts in order to pronounce them.

Jack focused on individual letters and how they came together to form sounds, chunks, and finally words in his interactions with Patrick. For example, in the following transcript, Patrick read the word “accuracy” as “encouragement.” Jack takes him through solving the word by examining the graphophonic aspect of the word.

281

Patrick Encouragement Jack Not encouragement, there’s no t at the end. Patrick Ac Jack Ac, What’s ur make? Patrick Cur Jack No not cur, oh cur makes cur, right. Accur…. Patrick Accur…. Jack Accura….accura….c would make the s sound because there’s a y after it. Jack/Patrick Accuracy. Jack Good. This gave him great accuracy. Patrick This gave him great accuracy. Sesssion #2, 7/3/06

In this example, Jack does the word-solving work, rather than teaching Patrick to use the strategy on his own. In this way, he does not encourage self-monitoring or independent use of the word-solving strategy, but he has introduced it to Patrick as one way of figuring out how to pronounce words.

Annie and Nora did not emphasize word analysis in their interactions with their students, because it did not match the goals they had for their students over the summer.

Students did encounter words they did not know how to pronounce in their reading, of course, and when they did, the teachers taught them how to figure out the pronunciation of words as needed. Nora’s approach may be labeled as analytic, although my observations of her sessions did not show that she used this approach with consistency.

When Matthew came to words he did not know, Nora would point at the words, cover up unfamiliar chunks to reveal familiar ones, then ask Matthew to “look at the letters” if he still could not figure out the word. This was a pattern that I noted in my field notes on four occasions (June 29, July 6, July 11, July 12). However, I also noted instances in which she simply “stuck out her ear” (July 6, July 11) when Matthew came to an

282

unknown word, and I commented, “She is not giving him any strategies for solving

words” (July 6). While Jenny and Jack’s approaches showed their students specific

strategies for solving words, Nora’s approach was random and inconsistent.

Annie identified one of Maggie’s strengths as pronouncing words as she read

aloud (Interview #1, 6/14/06). Word analysis was not emphasized in the interactions, therefore, and occurred incidentally as Maggie came to words she did not know how to

pronounce. In the eight examples found of Annie teaching Maggie how to pronounce

words in the sessions, a consistent approach could not be identified. Annie asked Maggie

to break words apart 50% of the time, drawing her attention to familiar patterns and

chunks within the words. This may be described as an analytic approach to word solving.

The other 50% of the time, Annie focused Maggie’s attention on individual letters and

their sounds before applying them to the word, which may be described as synthetic.

Teaching the use of context clues as a reading strategy. All of the teachers taught

their students to use context clues to figure out unknown words. Context clues were used

to not only figure out how words were pronounced, but also what words meant. Nora

and Annie taught their students to use context clues intentionally, whereas Jack and Jenny

used it incidentally. Nora and Annie wanted their students to increase their

comprehension of texts, so the use of context clues was important for their students to

learn to use independently to be able to make meaning from the texts they read. Jack and

Jenny did not have increased comprehension as their primary goal for their students, so

the use of context clues was a by-product of the students reading aloud from connected

text and pronouncing words as they were encountered in the text. Although they both

used context clues for the same purpose, Annie’s approach to the use of context clues was

283

distinct from Nora’s. While Nora used context clues as a way to collaborate with

Matthew, Annie used context clues as a way for Maggie to quickly get at the meaning of

the word so that she could move ahead with her reading. For all of the students, the use

of context clues was taught to them to help them be more successful in the reading of

connected text.

Teaching the use of background knowledge as a reading strategy. The teachers in

this study elicited background knowledge about the texts and topics they were reading

with their students, and where the appropriate background knowledge did not exist, they

built it. The use of background knowledge as a reading strategy was taught through the

use of activities employed before, during, and after the reading that relied upon, elicited,

and built background knowledge. For example, Jenny used expectation grids (Caldwell

& Leslie, 2005), Annie used anticipation guides, and Nora used concept word sorts (Bear,

Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2003) before reading to elicit background knowledge.

Jack did not employ any pre-reading activities to elicit background knowledge, but used

questioning during the reading to discuss Patrick’s previous knowledge of the topic.

Teachers facilitated the use of background knowledge by selecting books about

which students had some previous knowledge. Jenny chose books that directly related to

topics Ethan was interested in reading about, including reptiles and baseball. Annie

chose books that were about soccer and dance, two of Maggie’s primary interests. Jack

also chose books that matched Patrick’s interest, and he engaged Patrick in discussions

about his background knowledge of the topics. Jack initiated conversations that centered on building or extending Patrick’s background knowledge during the reading of the text.

Whereas Jenny was able to confirm or extend information offered by Ethan, Patrick did

284

not provide such interactions. Jack used questioning to assist Patrick in articulating his

background knowledge. Patrick required guidance in the use of the background knowledge while reading.

The only teacher that did not select books that directly related to areas of interest

as identified by the student was Nora. She selected historical fiction and non-fiction

books for the guided reading portion of their lessons, not books that reflected his interest in sports. Matthew did appear very interested in the topics she chose, however, as evidenced by his engagement with the lesson, asking of questions about the topic, and offering of his own thoughts related to the topic (Field notes). Nora did choose one book about sports, during the first session, and one poem about sports, during the seventh session, for Matthew to read from, but her other book selections were not sports related.

One of the goals Nora had for Matthew was to become more independent as a reader, so

by choosing books representing a variety of topics, she was broadening his experiences

with reading (Interview #1, 6/24/06). Within each session, Nora structured Matthew’s

comprehension of the texts by designing before, during, and after activities. The before

reading activities included vocabulary word sorts (Session #3), KWL charts (Session #6),

graphic organizers (Session #4), and prediction tasks (Sessions #5 and # 9). The

scaffolding provided through the before reading activities taught Matthew how to activate

and build background knowledge, which may support him as he tries to independently

read texts. In the fall, when asked about books he had been reading, Matthew identified

several books that he had read, and none of them had to do with sports. His reading

interests may have been broadened by this exposure to other topics during the summer.

285

Questioning

Questioning was used by these teachers at points of difficulty and to monitor understanding of texts and concepts. The categories of questions emerged through inductive analysis of the data, as described in chapter 3. An analysis was conducted to determine how frequently each of the categories of questions was used by the teachers.

Table 5.6 summarizes the frequency with which each type of question was used by each of the teachers.

Jenny Annie Jack Nora

Probing 36% Monitoring 30% Probing 25% Probing 46%

Monitoring 21% Probing 23% Monitoring 14% Monitoring 24%

Leading 12% Managing 15% Managing 13% Managing 11%

Clarifying 11% Leading 11% Leading 6% Assisting 7%

Extending 7% Extending 10% Extending 6% Extending 6%

Assisting 5% Connecting 6% Assisting 5% Leading 5%

Connecting 4% Restating 4% Restating 2% Restating <1%

Managing 4% Assisting <1% Clarifying 2% Clarifying __

Restating <1% Clarifying __ Connecting <1% Connecting __

Table 5.6: Types of questions used by the teachers.

286

Probing and monitoring questions were the most frequently used questions by all

of the teachers. Annie used monitoring questions the most frequently (30%), while

Jenny, Jack and Nora were found to use probing questions more than any other type of

question. Monitoring questions were a tool used by Annie to check Maggie’s

comprehension, which was a major goal of Annie’s for Maggie’s success. Two types of

monitoring questions were used by the teachers: comprehension monitoring and memory

monitoring. Comprehension monitoring questions were designed to monitor a student’s

understanding of a text during the reading of it. Memory monitoring questions were used

to monitor a student’s ability to recall information discussed previously. Examples of the teachers’ usage of each of these types of questions were provided in the individual case studies.

The opening words of the monitoring questions posed by the teachers are indicative of the teachers’ views on instructing struggling readers. Jenny’s questions posses a collaborative quality, as opposed to the opening words of the questions used by the other teachers for monitoring purposes. The following table compares the opening words of a representative sample of each teacher’s questions.

Jenny Jack Annie Nora Do you know… Do you remember… Do you remember… Do you remember… So let’s talk about… What does…mean? What does…mean? Summarize… You decided… What’s that mean… What could you Were you right… do… Can you give me… What is… Where do you Why did… think…

Table 5.7: Opening words of the teachers’ monitoring questions.

287

The monitoring questions posed by all of the teachers checked students’

comprehension of text and procedures. In Jenny’s questions, the responsibility for this

process was shared between teacher and student. By using such phrases, as “So let’s talk

about” in reference to a section of text that was confusing, Jenny indicated to Ethan that

she wanted to construct the understanding of the text jointly. In contrast, asking, “What

does…mean?” as in Jack’s and Annie’s examples, implies that there is one right answer

that is known by the teacher. The last two examples of Annie’s, “Where do you think”

and “What could you do” indicate that she employed a joint approach to monitoring at

times throughout her lessons, as well.

Managing questions used by the teachers were related to their approach to

instruction. Annie and Nora’s lesson plans were revealed to the student throughout the

tutoring session, and the managing questions they used were rhetorical. While Jenny

planned at what points Ethan would have choice during the lesson, Annie and Nora often

posed rhetorical managing questions to Maggie and Matthew. These rhetorical questions provided an illusion that the students had a stake in the procedures of the lessons, but in

reality the procedures had been decided by the teacher before the lesson began. Annie

and Nora’s managing questions are compared in Table 5.8.

288

Annie Nora Ok, so you ready to start reading our story Can you read the sentence for me? (Session today? (Session #1) #1) Ok. Let’s read it together one more time, Now, who do you think’s gonna read and then you’ll do it by yourself, and then today? (Matthew: Me.) (Session #3) we’ll move on to our word work activity, OK? (Session #3) I’ll read a page and you read a page, so OK, why don’t you read them to me? does that sound OK? (Session #6) (Session #7) But today we’re gonna read the book, OK? OK, all right, why don’t you just kind of go (Session #8) over what you wrote here, just kind of tell me the gist of everything that you filled out. (Session #8)

Table 5.8: Annie and Nora’s managing questions.

The use of “OK?” coupled with a procedural statement in Annie’s questions indicates

that Annie is asking for Maggie to agree to the procedures she has already stated.

Nora’s questions are phrased such that Matthew is not given an option to agree or

disagree. Each of the questions shared above is a directive. The use of “why don’t you”

in Session #7 and Session #8 is similar to the use of “OK?” in Annie’s questions.

Although seemingly asking for the student’s opinion, these questions did not get the

student involved in the decision making of the lesson plan.

As was mentioned in the individual case study, Jack strove to institute a

collaborative approach in his teaching, but his interactions indicated a direct approach.

Jack purposefully attempted to implement a collaborative approach, as evidenced by his

lesson plan reflections, in sessions 10 and 12. Even within these sessions, only one

example of a managing question that invited collaboration was found, “What do you think we should do to divide up the parts and practice?” (Session #12). The remaining

289

managing questions posed by Jack, which represented 13% of his questions, were ones in which he directed Patrick to do something and checked for his understanding. Jenny’s use of managing questions was discussed in detail in the individual case study. Evidence was found across her sessions of a collaborative approach to instruction, and her managing questions represented only 4% of her questions. The managing questions she did pose were collaborative in nature, inviting Ethan to contribute to the direction of the lesson.

Summary

This section has discussed the teachers’ use of scaffolding instruction and teaching strategy use at the students’ points of difficulty. The teachers’ use of questions has also been discussed. This study found that the teachers used modeling and explicit teaching most frequently to scaffold instruction for their students, and taught students to use structural analysis, context clues, and background knowledge to pronounce words and determine their meanings. The teachers used probing, monitoring, and managing questions to inquire about their students’ learning throughout the lessons. The following section will discuss the students’ literate identity shifts as part of their use of coping behaviors.

Identity Shifts as Part of Coping Behaviors

The interactions between the teachers and the students influenced identity shifts in the students that were discussed in the individual case studies. As mentioned previously, all 4 of the teachers wanted their students to become more independent as readers as a result of the tutoring. Of the 4 students, Matthew was the only one willing to share his

290

feelings that he was not a successful reader, as evidenced by his inability to name anything he did well as a reader without prompting from Nora (Interview #1, 6/27/06).

The other 3 students presented views of themselves as successful readers. Even

Matthew, however, avoided “losing face” as a reader and strove to present himself as a successful reader, as the analysis revealed. For Matthew, this meant he tried to function independently as a reader throughout the tutoring sessions. Matthew took on increased confidence as a new aspect to his literate identity. Analysis of the data related to Ethan revealed the ways in which he coped with his struggle, attempting to maintain a positive view of himself as a reader. Maggie strove to develop an understanding of what counted as reading within the tutoring sessions so that she could adopt new purposes for reading and strengthen those she already had developed. Patrick used his adeptness at procedural display to explore a new aspect of his identity, constructive thinking. In all 4 of these students, new aspects of their literate identity developed within the context of what they had brought with them to the tutoring sessions.

In this section, I will discuss the use of coping behaviors in all 4 of the students.

Coping behaviors were discussed in detail within Ethan’s case study. Coping behaviors were seen in all four of the students as a response to the interactions with their teachers.

Other identity shifts in each of the students were discussed in the individual case studies.

Coping behaviors were used by the students at points of difficulty to deal with the struggles they faced, particularly in light of the fact that none of them wanted to display their struggles to read. Coping behaviors were a way for these students to attempt to maintain their existing literate identities. My analysis of the data showed that the students’ coping behaviors included verbal and nonverbal responses to points of

291

difficulty, as well as resistance to the dominant themes emphasized by the teachers in the

interactions. The themes of resistance, cooperation, and silencing in the students’ use of

coping behaviors will be discussed below.

Coping as Resistance

Analysis of the interactions between Maggie and Annie showed the resistance

Maggie exerted throughout the interactions to pursue her own definitions of reading,

mainly as a competitive act. Resistance was a way for Maggie to make her own views of

herself as a reader a part of the lessons that were planned and executed by Annie.

Maggie resisted Annie’s desire for her to see comprehension as a principal definition of reading, although as the analysis showed, Maggie’s identity did begin to shift to take on the definition of reading as comprehension by the end of the summer and into the fall.

Annie did not encourage Maggie’s need to compete as a reader. In fact, Annie discouraged Maggie’s use of her reading log to compete through her reading over the

summer. Maggie’s resistance was a coping behavior to deal with the threats to her

literate identity that saw reading as a competitive act.

Matthew was willing to acknowledge his struggle to read, and therefore did not

have as much of a need as the other students did to use coping comments to explain

struggles. Analysis of my field notes showed that I noted Matthew’s change of voice and

physical demeanor as methods he used to respond at a point of difficulty.

Matthew’s voice gets softer when he struggles. Nora has to really lean in to hear

what he is saying (Field notes, 7/5/06).

292

He’s embarrassed about his difficulties. Nora asks him, “Do you know what sound a “c” makes, besides cuh?” He shrugs his shoulders. (Field notes, 7/6/06)

Matthew’s coping behaviors were ways to avoid the point of difficulty, by making

his voice softer and more difficult to hear, and by shrugging his shoulders in response to

questions he did not know the answer to immediately. Matthew used coping behaviors to

avoid displaying his difficulties with reading tasks, a form of resistance to the identity he

had been assigned as a struggling reader.

Matthew was described by Nora as “polite and cooperative” (Interview #1,

6/20/06). Nora’s selection of books for Matthew to read aloud that were beyond his

instructional level did not cause Matthew to resist the task, as may have been expected.

Matthew responded to the challenge the books presented by persisting through the

difficulties in word recognition and comprehension he encountered, as was shown in the

analysis in the individual case study. He was willing to engage in all of the tasks Nora

posed for him within the lessons, but he resisted her goal for him to read in his spare

time. During his first interview, he did not mention reading as something he did in his

spare time (Interview #1, 6/24/06). His mother mentioned to me during the first session

how he did not read books at home (Session #1, 6/24/06). During the last session, Nora

encouraged him to come back to the library to check out the novel they had been reading

together, to which Matthew shrugged his shoulders in response (Session #9, 8/1/06).

Matthew saw his grandmother as someone who was a good reader (Interview data), and

Nora used this to try to encourage Matthew to read on his own time. Within the

individual case study, Nora’s comments to Matthew encouraging him to emulate his

grandmother’s reading habits were shared (Interview #2, 8/1/06). Matthew’s response to

293

these comments indicated that he understood what Nora wanted him to do, but there was no indication over the summer that he had taken up reading on his own time. In the interview in the fall, Matthew discussed two books he had read that he had enjoyed. Both of these books were read during school hours during silent reading time, but the fact that he had read and enjoyed them indicated a shift from the behaviors Nora had seen at the end of the previous school year. At that time, Matthew had struggled to finish reading any books on his own. Matthew’s resistance was to the identity Nora wanted him to take on, as a reader outside of school, but his behaviors in the fall indicated that he had started to enjoy reading independently during school hours. Matthew’s literate identity had shifted to include reading independently as something he was beginning to enjoy.

Patrick’s coping comments provided an explanation for his struggle. Rather than projecting the error to outside factors, his coping comments served to eliminate the struggle, through statements that asserted his abilities to complete the tasks. For example, in the following transcript, Jack quizzes Patrick about the meaning of several words he had just finished reading aloud in context.

Jack 1 All right, do you remember what this is here, at the end of the book? Patrick 2 The glossary Jack 3 Uh huh, all about the words that you might not know. Patrick 4 They were in there, Jack 5 A lot of them were, weren’t there, in the sentences after them. Patrick 6 And most of them I know. Jack 7 Well that’s what I was going to ask you, are there any that you don’t 8 know or want to know more about? Patrick 9 Um, no. Jack 10 Did you read through all of them? Patrick 11 I was going to…. Jack 12 Backboard, charging, do you know what charging is? Patrick 13 Yeah Jack 14 Ok, what is it? Patrick 15 Oh, no 294

Jack 16 Why don’t you read it? Patrick 17 [Patrick reads the definitions aloud.] Jack 18 So what does it mean? Session #5, 7/12/06

In line 6, Patrick asserts that he knows most of the words in the glossary, and when

questioned further about this by Jack in lines 7 and 8, he reasserts his knowledge of the

words in line 9. However, further questioning by Jack showed that Patrick had not read

through the words and did not actually know the meanings of them. Patrick’s assertions

that he knew the words before actually reviewing them are an example of the way in

which he used coping comments. Coping comments were used to avoid error, similar to

the way in which Matthew used them. For Patrick, however, coping comments were

used to assert his confidence in tasks he anticipated Jack was going to ask him to

complete. In another example, discussed in the individual case study, Patrick struggled to

formulate self-monitoring questions as he read because he saw them as a sign of

misunderstanding. He formed questions to which he knew the answer. Further

questioning from Patrick, however, showed that this was not always the case. Patrick’s

coping comments were a projection of confidence in his ability to complete reading

related tasks, which was a form of resistance to the identity he had been assigned as a

struggling reader.

Patrick resisted Jack’s attempts at moving him from procedural display to

constructive thinking. Interestingly, by pushing Patrick to think more constructively,

Jack was incorporating his perspectives into the lessons, but this was where Patrick

resisted. Jack commented to me during a break in the fourth session that Patrick was so used to reading for fluency practice that he neglected to use comprehension strategies as

295

he read. He also stated that Patrick had become dependent on the assistance of a teacher

to help him through the reading of a text, so that he was reluctant to perform tasks

independently (Field notes, 7/5/06). Patrick’s resistance came from past experiences with

receiving constant assistance through reading tasks, and Jack’s desire for him to perform independently was not a skill he was used to being asked to do. Patrick’s resistance was not as intentional as it was for the other students who showed resistance. Rather,

Patrick’s resistance arose from lack of understanding of and knowledge of how to complete the type of tasks he was being asked to do. As the teacher, Jack noted Patrick’s resistance to constructive thinking (Lesson #10 reflection), and tried to structure his lessons to help Patrick in being able to think more constructively. As the analysis of the individual case study showed, Patrick’s literate identity did eventually shift to take on aspects of constructive thinking as the sessions progressed.

Coping as Cooperation

As has been discussed, Ethan was a willing and eager participant in all reading related tasks Jenny posed for him. Ethan did not display resistance in his interactions with Jenny. Analysis of the individual case study showed how Jenny used a collaborative approach in her interactions with Ethan. This collaborative approach included acknowledging Ethan’s contributions to the lessons. Ethan’s positive literate identity was strengthened through the interactions with Jenny because of her validation of his coping behaviors and collaborative approach which placed him as a partner in the learning.

Ethan’s use of coping comments and behaviors at the point of difficulty has been discussed throughout this analysis of the data. As stated in the individual case study,

Jenny supported Ethan’s use of coping comments through her verbal and nonverbal

296

responses to his comments. There were 22 examples of coping behaviors found in Ethan and Jenny’s sessions. Examples of these coping behaviors were shared in the individual case study. Ethan used coping behaviors at points of difficulty to project and normalize his error. Ethan also used physical actions, such as smiling, tapping his fingers, or putting his hands to his head, to cope with difficulty. Although Maggie, Matthew, and

Patrick also exhibited coping behaviors in various ways, their coping behaviors were not taken up by their teachers as readily as Ethan’s were by Jenny. Consequently, they were not a dominant part of the interactions.

Silenced Coping Behaviors

As was discussed in her case study, Maggie repeatedly asked if books read during the sessions were going to “count” for her summer reading log for the library’s reading program. Maggie wanted to fill in the log before either of her younger brothers, but this goal was silenced by Annie throughout the interactions. On the three occasions in which

Annie asked Maggie if she wanted to stop reading a book that seemed too difficult or long for her, Maggie always responded that she did want to finish the book. Using the reading log as a way to compete was not only a form of resistance to the definitions of reading Annie emphasized in the lessons, it was also a way for Maggie to cope with difficulty. On each of the occasions mentioned above, Maggie had been exhibiting behaviors that indicated she was growing tired of reading, such as leaning on the table, putting her head in her hands, or yawning (field notes). In addition, her reading had become slower and more laborious (field notes). At the prospect of having to stop reading the book, however, Maggie would sit up and focus her attention back on reading fluently. The reading log was a coping mechanism for dealing with difficulty, as it was a

297

motivation for her to work through books that were too long or too difficult for her instructional level. Annie did not encourage these coping behaviors, as she talked with

Maggie about how the reading log was not a valid reason for reading books (Session #3).

In this example, Maggie’s identity did not shift as a result of the interactions. Rather,

Maggie’s resistance allowed her to maintain competitiveness as an aspect of her literate identity, despite the fact that her use of it as a coping behavior was not acknowledged by

Annie.

Nora also did not acknowledge Matthew’s coping behaviors as such in the interactions. While Jenny used positive verbal and nonverbal reinforcement to acknowledge Ethan’s coping comments, Nora did not acknowledge them as positively.

When Matthew encountered difficulty, and responded with a coping behavior such as those described above, Nora persisted at asking Matthew to complete the task.

Matthew’s attempts to avoid making an error by quieting his voice, shrugging his shoulders, or responding “I don’t know” (Field notes, 6/24/06) were ignored as Nora rephrased or restated her question, allowed wait time for Matthew to solve the problem on his own, or told him the answer, a process identified in the individual case study analysis. By not acknowledging the avoidance of the error, Nora did not validate

Matthew’s use of the coping behavior within the interactions.

As the tutoring sessions progressed, analysis of my field notes revealed less use of coping behaviors from Matthew than at the beginning. After the fourth session, I did not note any coping behaviors that I noticed as I actively observed the sessions. The pattern discussed previously that Nora followed when Matthew came to a word he did not know, in which she would point to the word, provide him with suggestions on how to sound it

298

out, then tell him the word if he still did not know it after several attempts, did not allow

Matthew to use his coping behaviors to avoid the task. Nora continued to follow this pattern throughout the tutoring sessions, and Matthew responded by persisting at attempting to pronounce the word. At other points of difficulty, such as answering questions posed to him about a text, Matthew also learned that his coping behaviors were not effective at avoiding the task. For example, in the following transcript, Matthew used coping behaviors of shrugging his shoulders (line 2) and saying, “I forget” (line 8) to avoid making an error. Nora persists in asking him to provide a response (line 7), however, and Matthew makes an attempt in line 11. As this was the eighth session,

Matthew had learned that Nora would not acknowledge his coping behaviors as valid methods of avoiding difficulty, so rather than continuing to avoid the situation, Matthew issues a response to Nora’s question.

Nora 1 Ok, so we have characters, setting, what else? Matthew 2 He looks at her and shrugs his shoulders. Nora 3 What else makes up a fiction story, a made up 4 story. What other elements? Maybe when we talk 5 about it in class… Matthew 6 I don’t know the word. Nora 7 What is it, even if you don’t know the word? Matthew 8 I forget. Nora 9 Totally? OK… 10 Long pause while he thinks Matthew 11 People’s names. Session #8, 7/27/06

Matthew’s coping behaviors were used to avoid situations in which he would struggle, but Nora’s lack of acknowledgement of them forced Matthew to make attempts in the face of difficulty. The literate identity Matthew presented on the outside as a student who 299

did not struggle was challenged by the interactions with Nora. Unlike Ethan, whose

positive literate identity was strengthened through his interactions with Jenny, Matthew’s

was challenged when he faced difficulty. However, as Nora stated in her second

interview, Matthew did emerge from the tutoring sessions with more confidence as a

reader. He stated that he felt more confident about reading aloud in both his second and

third interviews. In facing the struggles he had to read, Matthew’s identity shifted to

include reading aloud as something he could do with confidence.

Summary

Identity is a personal and dynamic process that is unique to each individual.

Across the four cases, however, elements common to the processes undergone by these 4

students, such as resistance and coping behaviors, were identified. The unique ways in

which each of the students responded to these elements through the interactions made the

process of building identity their own. While Ethan’s use of coping comments was

supported by his teacher, the lack of support for the coping behaviors used by Maggie,

Matthew, and Patrick impacted the ways in which the students’ identities played out

across the interactions.

Summary

In this chapter, I presented the results of the cross-case analysis, identifying the common themes that emerged across all four cases. I found that the types of interactions that occurred were in part dependent upon the teachers’ views of struggling readers, and that the interactions between teachers and students served as a way for students to build their literate identities. Chapter 6 will provide a discussion of these results.

300

CHAPTER 6

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this chapter, I will first summarize the results of the data analysis from chapter

4, situating them within the existing research literature. Next, I will discuss the major findings and implications that resulted from the data analysis. Finally, I will discuss the limitations of this study and directions for future research.

Introduction

The purpose of my study was to relate the developing literate identities of students identified as struggling readers with the interactions between their teachers during one-to-one tutoring. This study took place across 6 months as part of a master’s level course on assessment and evaluation of reading difficulties. The course involved two semesters, including a semester of twice weekly class meetings on the university campus and a semester during which teachers in the class selected a student struggling with reading to assess and instruct over a 5-week period. Four teacher-student dyads were selected as participants in this study. Observations, interviews, and documents were collected as data and were analyzed using a qualitative, interpretive approach.

Specifically, data were coded for emerging themes and patterns that represented the

301

perspectives of the teachers on the assessment, evaluation, and instruction of struggling readers, and for the types of interactions that occurred. I conducted further analysis of the students’ verbal and nonverbal responses within the interactions using microanalysis to examine one literacy event from each dyad. These analytical steps were designed to address my research questions:

1. What is the perspective of the teacher on the assessment, evaluation, and

instruction of struggling readers? How does this perspective influence the

interactions between teacher and student?

2. What is the nature of the interactions between teachers and students within a

one-to-one tutoring program for struggling readers?

3. How do the interactions between the teachers and the students influence the

shifting literate identities of students identified as struggling readers?

The first research question concerned the teachers’ perspectives on the assessment, evaluation, and instruction of struggling readers. Data were coded for emerging themes and patterns related to the teachers’ perspectives on these three areas. Analysis revealed that the teachers viewed struggling readers from a primarily skills-based perspective, but had goals for their performance related to social performances, such as increased confidence. Teachers’ views of assessment and evaluation were consistent with their skills-based descriptions of struggling readers. Interviews and document analysis showed that teachers selected assessments that reflected skills-based views of struggling readers.

Three of the teachers, Jenny, Annie, and Nora, valued the Qualitative Inventory-IV because it provided them with a broad perspective on students’ skills, while Jack valued assessments of individual skills, such as phonics knowledge, over the broad perspective

302

provided by the Qualitative Reading Inventory-IV. Teachers’ views of instruction were also consistent with this skills-based approach, as teachers indicated that instruction should be responsive to students’ areas of need. The university course in which this research study was couched was also reflected in the teachers’ views of struggling readers. Analysis of the data found that teachers’ a priori views of the instruction of struggling readers were not always realized in their instructional interactions.

The second research question analyzed the nature of the interactions between teachers and students. Analysis of the data revealed two different types of interactions that were significant to this study, those at the point of difficulty and the asking of questions. Interactions at the point of difficulty included interactions that scaffolded instruction and teachers’ encouraging students’ reading strategy use. Specific categories of interactions which served to scaffold the instruction for the students that emerged across the cases were modeling and explicit teaching. The use of explicit teaching included instances when the teacher would explain, notice, or tell the student information to assist in the internalization process. Within Jenny and Ethan’s individual case analysis, examples of revoicing responses as a method of scaffolding instruction were also found.

Interactions at the point of difficulty also included those in which the teacher would encourage the students’ use of reading strategies. The use of reading strategies was specifically taught to students through structural analysis, use of context clues, use of background knowledge, and rereading. Structural analysis, use of context clues, and use

303

of background knowledge were examples of encouraging the use of strategies that were

found in all four cases. The strategy of rereading text to check for accuracy was found primarily in Nora and Matthew’s case.

Interactions involving the asking of questions included several different types of questions that were used in differing amounts by each of the teachers. Probing questions were the most often used questions in Jenny’s (36%), Jack’s (25%) and Nora’s (46%) sessions. Annie used probing questions 23% of the time, while she used monitoring questions 30% of the time. Question usage was reflective of individual teacher’s approach to the instruction of struggling readers. Jenny and Jack incorporated the most variety of questions, and the phrasings of their questions were open ended and inviting of unique responses from the student. Annie and Nora approached instruction from a direct perspective, and their questions were closed and invited rhetorical responses from the

student. By characterizing the interactions that occurred at the point of difficulty and

those that involved the asking of questions, I addressed my second research question.

The third research question analyzed the role the interactions played in the

developing literate identities of the students. To analyze the data in response to this

question, I utilized microanalysis of a single event from each dyad’s sessions and related

the findings from this microanalysis to themes found in the larger corpus of data. I found

that identities developed that were both resistant and compliant to the teacher’s responses throughout the interaction. Students employed coping comments within the interactions as a way to incorporate new aspects into the literate identities they brought with them to

304

the lessons. The students resisted new additions to their literate identities presented to

them by their teachers. Through interactions with their teachers, the students built literate

identities for themselves.

The analysis of the data for this study of teacher-student interactions within a one-

to-one tutoring situation revealed several themes that are critical to the research questions

and significant to the larger body of literature. First, the role of the teachers in the

interactions was critical to the types of interactions produced and the ways in which the

students’ identities were developed through these interactions. Second, the role of the

student within the interactions was also critical. Just as the teachers’ views of struggling readers influenced the types of interactions that occurred, so too did the students’ views of themselves as readers influence how they were positioned within the interaction.

Third, identity was found to be produced intercontextually (Leander, 2001) through the interactions between teachers and students, making the individual interactions contingent upon surrounding interactions. This intercontextuality contributed to the ways in which students shifted their identities across the interactions they had with their teachers. Each of these themes will be discussed in detail below.

Discussion of the Findings

Role of the Teachers’ Perspectives on Struggling Readers

In analyzing the ways in which the teacher’s perspective on struggling readers was reflected in the interactions with the student (Question Two), I found that this perspective was critical to the types of interactions produced throughout the lessons. This aligns with the work of Johnston (2004), which proposed that teachers’ language use has

305

profound effects on the ways in which students are positioned within interactions. For

example, cross-case analysis of the data found that Jenny’s validation of Ethan’s use of coping comments supported the collaborative learning environment within their sessions, while Nora’s lack of acknowledgement of Matthew’s coping behaviors did not validate them in the interactions. This influenced the ways in which Ethan and Matthew were able to explore and build their literate identities. Ethan’s coping comments allowed him to maintain the positive view of himself as a reader and have some input into the interactions that occurred, while Matthew struggled through tasks that were too difficult for him by depending on Nora’s guidance. Matthew’s resilience as a reader allowed him to build a positive view of himself as a reader despite the struggle he experienced.

In addition, the teachers’ perspectives on struggling readers played a large part in the exploration of identity. Teachers’ actions within interactions influenced how students were able to explore new and revised identities for themselves as readers. These actions on the part of the teacher were contingent upon the views they held of struggling readers.

Annie valued comprehension as a definition of reading, while Maggie valued competition. Annie did not view competition as a valued definition of reading, and discouraged Maggie from pursuing it. Maggie, like Matthew, possessed resilience that allowed her to pursue her own definitions of reading, such as competition, despite

Annie’s presentation of an alternate one.

Teachers’ views on reading were also reflected in their interactions with their students. Reading has traditionally been viewed from a skills-based perspective.

Viewing reading in this way posits that “the difficulties that an individual student or a group of students experiences are viewed as the result of improper instruction or deficits

306

in the student(s)” (Bloome & Katz, 1997, p. 205). Alternatively, viewing reading from a

social perspective emphasizes the relational aspects of reading, and the influences of

outside factors, such as authors, texts, cultural practices, and other people on the reading

process (Street, 1993). In this study, reading was viewed by the teachers as

simultaneously a skills-based and a social practice, but the ways in which these

perspectives were manifested in the interactions was critical to the ways in which the

students constructed identity within the lessons. Jack valued constructive thinking for

Patrick. He also saw struggling readers as lacking specific skills. Jack made both the

development of constructive thinking and specific reading skills, such as fluency, the

focus of his lessons. Patrick was comfortable in working on the specific skills, but not

with constructive thinking. Patrick resisted taking on constructive thinking as part of his

identity, but by the end of the sessions had begun to think more constructively about the

texts he read.

Although Nora consistently selected books for Matthew to read aloud that were

beyond his instructional level, she never stated reasons why she did this. Nora wanted

Matthew to become more confident and independent as a reader, which may have

informed her choice of texts. By selecting topics that he had not listed as interest areas,

Matthew’s interests in reading may have been broadened. Matthew did indicate interest

in the historical fiction texts that Nora selected, and he mentioned in his interview in the

fall that he had enjoyed reading The Westing Game (Raskin, 1997) in class, which was a book that did not match his previously stated interests of sports. Selecting texts that were both too difficult for Matthew to read and which did not match his interest areas was a risky decision on Nora’s part. As a new teacher, Nora may still have been resolving her

307

own definitions of reading with her role as a teacher. In particular, Nora mentioned in

her first interview that she had been asked to teach according to a packaged program for

struggling readers, Read 180 (Hasselbring, 1999), which limited her opportunities for

autonomy in decision making. In addition, Nora mentioned her lack of confidence in

working with struggling readers one-to-one. All of these reasons may have been factors

in Nora’s selection of books that were beyond Matthew’s instructional level, and his

struggle to read them aloud impacted his identity development.

Match Between Teachers’ Beliefs and Instruction

When analyzing the teachers’ views of struggling readers and the ways in which

they instructed their students in the one-to-one situation, I found that there was not a

perfect match between what the teachers said and what they actually did. For example,

Nora described struggling readers, and more specifically Matthew, using behaviors and

social indicators, such as a lack of motivation to read in comparison to peers. However, in her instructional interactions with Matthew, Nora focused on specific skills, such as fluency and word-solving strategies. Nora was not confident in teaching these skills, but she had determined from assessment data that this was what Matthew needed to learn.

Jenny described struggling readers and her goals for working with Ethan from a skills- based perspective, listing specific reading skills that Ethan was lacking. In her

instructional interactions with Ethan, she did focus on these skills, but she also

incorporated a social perspective on reading, tailoring instruction to Ethan’s interests and

background experiences. Jack described both socially based and skills based views of

struggling readers. He attempted to implement a collaborative approach in his teaching,

but Patrick resisted this approach. Jack continued to integrate collaborative approaches

308

when working with Patrick because he felt Patrick would benefit from this type of

instruction. He also continued to work on the specific skills that assessment data had

shown Patrick needed using a direct approach with which Patrick was more comfortable.

In Annie’s interactions with Maggie, her own agenda for the course of the lesson,

the improvement of certain reading skills, took priority over Maggie’s socially oriented

goals of competing with her brothers and peers. As the analysis of the data showed,

Maggie resisted Annie’s a priori goals for her, and was limited in her ability to explore

her own goals within the interactions. In Annie’s case, her instructional decisions

matched her previous descriptions of struggling readers and her views on instructing

them. Although Annie chose books that matched Maggie’s interests and instructional

level, she did not incorporate Maggie’s own definitions and goals for reading into the

lessons. Nora did not choose books that matched Matthew’s interests or instructional

level, but she did plan lessons that incorporated activities Matthew enjoyed, such as

games (Interview #2, 8/1/06). Nora and Annie used assessment of students’ interests and

preferences in reading in a limited way to inform their instruction, while Jenny and Jack

used the data to help them plan their lessons. Teachers who work with struggling readers may look to this study to view the ways in which teachers can use assessment data to inform and guide their instruction to meet the needs and interests of their students.

Approaching each student as an individual case requiring different types of instructional support has benefits for the development of both skills-based and social purposes for reading within struggling readers.

309

Views of Disability Reflected in the Teacher-Student Interactions

This study can also be discussed in light of the research literature that defines

disability according to a social/cultural perspective (Alvermann, 2001b; Coles, 1989;

Deno, 1970; Emihovich, 1994; McDermott & Varenne, 1995; D. Taylor, 1988). By

defining the students as struggling readers according to their lack of certain reading skills,

all 4 of the teachers used a categorical/medical model of diagnosis of disability.

However, the teachers also attributed students’ struggles to read to cultural and social factors. Jack and Annie both discussed the influence of sibling rivalry on students’ views of themselves as readers. Nora mentioned the influence of Matthew’s home life on his practices as a reader outside of school and Jenny discussed the role situations in Ethan’s family may have played in his development as a reader during the school year. All of the teachers mentioned that part of the reason for tutoring their students was to prepare them for the social demands of the classrooms they would face in the fall. Consideration of these cultural and social factors on students as readers enabled the teachers to set related goals for their students, such as increased confidence and motivation, which contributed to their identity process. In this sense, this study extends the research on the social/cultural model of disability, because it provides evidence for its implementation in academic settings as a method to define disability. Implications from this discussion for the instruction of struggling readers include consideration by teachers of the cultural/social factors contributing to the struggle to read, including contextual factors

within the classroom itself. Jack was one teacher who expressed consideration of the

highly competitive environment of his district, and the fact that Patrick was considered a

struggling reader in that environment, but in another district may be considered

310

successful. The teachers in this study assessed the students’ reading interests and

preferences, learned about their lives outside of school, and included this background

information in their plans for instruction. Assessing not only skills, but also affective

factors of reading such as interests and family life, allowed these teachers to consider the

cultural/social factors influencing the students’ struggles to read.

Influence of the University Course

One important influence on the teachers’ perspectives on struggling readers that was a part of this study was the university course in which they were enrolled. During the first class session at the university, the class discussed definitions of struggling readers, highlighting terminology used to describe them (struggling reader, learning disabled, remedial reader, etc.). Teachers shared their definitions of struggling readers with one another, adding to or changing their own written definitions based on their discussions with other members of the class. Throughout the class, the teachers learned about the specific assessments they implemented with their students, as well as specific instructional strategies that may be used when working with struggling readers. For example, one class session was devoted to fluency as an area of need for struggling readers. Students were taught how to use the Multidimensional Fluency Scale (Rasinski,

2003) as one method of assessing fluency, and then were taught a variety of strategies for instructing readers who struggle with fluency. Reader’s Theatre, repeated readings, timed readings, partner reading, and echo reading were some of the strategies discussed in class, or read about in the assigned readings for the week. All 4 of the teachers were observed using these strategies in their instruction, indicating that the information presented in the class may have influenced their instructional decisions. Although it

311

cannot be determined with certainty the extent of the influence of the course on the teachers’ perspectives on struggling readers, the fact that course discussions and readings were seen in the interactions analyzed indicates that the teachers had adopted some of the

topics discussed in class into their instruction.

Interactions at the Point of Difficulty

Another way in which the teachers’ views of struggling readers were reflected in the interactions was seen by analyzing their interactions at the point of difficulty. As mentioned previously, interactions at the point of difficulty included scaffolding instruction and teaching strategy use. The ways in which these types of interactions reflected the views of the teachers on struggling readers will be discussed below.

Scaffolding. In the past, scaffolding has been used to refer to the series of steps teachers use to gradually release responsibility to students (Gallimore & Tharp, 1990). In this study, however, teachers were seen to use the steps selectively and in random order, which did not always result in increased responsibility for the student. For example,

Nora consistently chose books that were too difficult for Matthew to read independently, a choice which did not allow for Matthew to take any responsibility for the learning during the read aloud portion of the lesson. However, Nora provided a great deal of

support for the reading in the form of before, during, and after reading activities, such as

graphic organizers, to assist Matthew in constructing understanding of what was being

read. Rather than approaching the zone of proximal development as something that had

to be progressed through in discrete stages, all of the teachers in this study responded to students’ unique needs through various modes of scaffolding instruction. These involved modeling, revoicing, and noticing critical aspects of the learning. The student

312

participants in this study were selected by their teachers because of a demonstrated

struggle with reading, and the purpose of the one-to-one tutoring was to focus on the

individual student’s needs, tailoring instruction to accomplish specific goals. Due to this

situation, the teachers were able to scaffold instruction differently than would have been

possible within the context of a classroom of many students. The teachers in this study

were able to support students’ unique needs due to the individualized nature of the

instruction.

Teachers in this study used scaffolding to respond to students’ changing needs by

changing the amount of responsibility the students had for the learning. This supports the

research of Scrismer and Tudge (2003) who stated that interpretations of the zone of

proximal development in teacher-student interactions needed to consider the role of both

teaching and learning in working within the zone. Jenny gave Ethan the control of the

lesson after teaching him how to use the expectation grid as a tool, asking him to initiate

the adding of information to the grid. She also chose books that Ethan was interested in

and knew a lot about, and he was able to teach her information about the topic. Ethan

acted as both teacher and learner at various points in their interactions. He was given

control of the learning when appropriate, while also receiving necessary support from

Jenny.

This finding also extends those of Childs and Greenfield (1982), who found that

interactions between teachers and students changed depending upon the difficulty of the

task for the student. My study found that not only did the interactions depend on the difficulty of the task, but on the responses of the teacher and the student to one another.

In Jack and Patrick’s case, Jack’s attempts at providing a collaborative learning

313

environment were made more difficult by Patrick’s resistance to this type of learning. In

the example of Ethan and Jenny, they exchanged roles as both teacher and learner

throughout the interactions in a process of collaborative learning, a process in which

Ethan was willing to engage.

In contrast, the interactions between Annie and Maggie positioned Maggie as the learner exclusively. Annie encouraged a linear progression through the zone of proximal development. As was seen in the interactions, there was a clash between the definitions of reading Maggie prioritized and those Annie emphasized in the interactions. Annie’s emphasis on her own definitions of reading limited the possibilities for teaching, learning, and identity construction. Analysis of the data showed that Ethan was successful in revising his identity, while Maggie resisted adopting the definitions of reading Annie presented for her in favor of her own. In this way, this study extends the important work of Scrismer and Tudge (2003) that encouraged a re-examination of Vygotsky’s theory of the zone of proximal development. Scrismer and Tudge suggested that rather than viewing Vygotsky’s theory as represented only by the zone of proximal development, educators should consider the implications of Vygotsky’s theory for teacher-student interactions. These implications include consideration of what teachers and students bring to interactions, the cultural contexts in which they occur, and what actually occurs in the interactions themselves. In addition, Scrismer and Tudge offer the idea that what is often referred to as scaffolding actually refers to the cyclical process of teaching and learning in which both teachers and students engage during instructional interactions. By

314

approaching learning as a process co-constructed by both teacher and student, Jenny was able to assist Ethan in revising and strengthening his literate identity, while Annie was not able to encourage these same shifts in Maggie.

The changing level of support offered to the students at the point of difficulty also supports the research of Rodgers (2005). Rodgers’ study of teachers working one-to-one with struggling readers described the complexity of scaffolding, specifically in terms of the decisions teachers make throughout lessons concerning the kind of help to provide and at what level to provide it. Decisions made by the teachers in this study regarding the type and level of help to provide at the point of difficulty were documented through the analysis of the interactions. As the results showed, teachers’ made decisions about how best to help their student based on their perspectives on struggling readers and on assessment data. Rodgers found that scaffolding consists of “trying a move, observing the student’s response, and then trying another move to provide a better fit to what the student is presently able to do” (p. 528). As the results of the analysis of the interactions in the present study showed, the teachers in this study did just that. Jenny, Annie, Jack, and Nora were shown to consistently evaluate the students’ responses to the help they provided, and to adjust based on the students’ responses. Consistent with Rodgers’ findings, this study found that scaffolding is more than a series of instructional steps to follow; rather, it is complex, involving modulating support on the part of the teacher.

Teaching the use of reading strategies. The reading strategies emphasized by the teachers in the interactions were not those that have been shown to encourage critical thinking skills on the part of students (Harvey & Goudvis, 1998). Use of word identification strategies, context clues, background knowledge, and rereading were taught

315

to assist students in monitoring and correcting errors at the word level of reading. Rather

than focusing on skills needed to critically analyze texts, such as making connections,

synthesizing, and making inferences, teachers were found to emphasize the use of word

solving skills over comprehension fixing strategies.

This supports research that states that struggling readers receive qualitatively

different instruction than typical readers, and that it emphasizes skills over strategies

(Allington, 1980, 1983). Allington (1983) asserts that students struggle with reading as

much due to differences in instruction as differences in ability. The students in this study

had been identified as struggling readers by their teachers, and when they received one-

to-one instruction from these teachers, received instruction focused on correct word-level

errors. In addition, Allington (1983) discusses the dichotomy that exists between the type

of reading asked of readers of differing abilities. Poor readers are more often asked to read orally, while good readers are more often asked to read silently. Reading orally to a

teacher results in a focus on miscues, while reading silently results in a focus on meaning.

Allington (1983) cites Heap (1980), in stating that not only does oral reading lead

to a focus on word level errors, but it also illuminates the problem that criteria for

successful reading depend on the teacher. This study supports this claim, because

teachers’ views on the assessment, evaluation and instruction of struggling readers

influenced both how they taught and how they judged their students’ performances. In

Jenny and Ethan’s interactions, the use of word solving strategies was found to be truly

that – strategies or tools to assist Ethan at the point of difficulty. Jenny encouraged Ethan

to analyze the usefulness of the strategies he had been taught to solve unknown words,

and to explain his reasons for choosing to use the strategies that he did. Jenny’s

316

collaborative approach to teaching Ethan extended discussions at the point of difficulty to encourage critical thinking in Ethan.

In addition, Jenny employed an analytical approach to phonics instruction when

Ethan encountered difficulty with the graphophonic structure of words. Using an analytical approach to phonics instruction is reflective of her view of the instruction of struggling readers from a more socially oriented perspective, because analytical approaches place phonics instruction within a social context. Through analytical approaches to phonics instruction, children are taught to analyze the graphophonic relationships of letters in words within real reading and writing and for their own purposes. In contrast, Jack employed a synthetic approach to phonics instruction in his work with Patrick, encouraging Patrick to examine the graphophonic relationships of letters in isolation, and then applying them to words. “Embedded phonics” is a term used in the research to describe the process of drawing students’ attention to letter-sound relationships within the context of real reading (Dahl, Scharer, Lawson, & Grogan,

2001). Both of these teachers employed an embedded approach, but the ways in which they taught students to analyze words in their reading were distinct. Jack’s use of the synthetic approach reflected his views of instructing struggling readers as skills-based, while Jenny’s use of the analytic approach reflected her view of instructing struggling readers according to social practices. The National Reading Panel (2000) reported that introducing systematic phonics instruction to children above second grade had little impact on their reading achievement. The National Reading Panel report also identified

317

synthetic approaches to phonics instruction as effective. Jenny’s approach to phonics

instruction provides support for the use of analytic approaches to phonics instruction when working with older struggling readers.

The role of the teacher’s perspective on struggling readers was articulated above.

By acting through the interactions, the teacher influenced the types of interactions that

occurred. These interactions produced unique spaces for the exploration of student

identity. In the next section, the role of the student in the interactions will be discussed.

Role of the Student in the Interactions

Each of the students in this study had previously developed views of themselves

as readers that were negotiated and renegotiated throughout their interactions with their teachers. These views of themselves as readers influenced the types of interactions that occurred between the teachers and the students. Although this was not a focus of the research questions per se, the role of the student within the interactions proved to be critical in the exploration of identity.

Influence of learning dispositions. This study extends the discussion regarding resilient and brittle learners, found in Johnston and Costello (2005). Johnston and

Costello discuss the role students’ attitudes toward learning play in their success or failure within learning contexts. Resilient learners can respond to difficult learning situations in positive ways, emerging with stronger senses of self. In one sense, the students in this study may be described as resilient, because they were at least somewhat willing to participate in the tutoring sessions, despite the fact that they occurred during the summer when most of their peers were not engaging in academic tasks. However, these students also avoided difficult situations and as evidenced by Ethan, displayed

318

elaborate coping strategies that served to cover up evidence of struggle. This study supports Johnston and Costello’s discussion by providing evidence that learners may be both brittle and resilient, and that such dispositions are dependent upon contextual factors, many outside the control of the student. Adding to this line of research, this study found that the influence of the teacher on the learning disposition of the student was great. The verbal contributions of the teachers to the interactions were shown to influence how the students responded and subsequently viewed themselves as readers.

Implications for teachers include examining their own beliefs about struggling readers, analyzing the language they use in their interactions with these students, and reflecting on student responses to the interactions.

For example, Maggie was a student who displayed qualities of both resilience and brittleness throughout the study. I have discussed her use of reading as a way to compete, and in negotiating for the inclusion of this aspect of her literate identity within the interactions, Maggie was resilient in the face of Annie’s redirecting of her behaviors.

However, when the act of reading became difficult, Maggie became tired, lethargic, and uninvolved in the lesson. Annie referred to the need for Maggie to develop “reading endurance” (Interview #2, 7/24/06), which is a description of the brittle behavior Annie had seen from Maggie in the face of difficulty. Concerning her own goals for reading,

Maggie possessed resilience in the face of adversity, but when faced with goals imposed by Annie, Maggie became brittle.

Matthew was a student who on the surface seemed particularly brittle, as evidenced by his lackadaisical expressions and approaches to the interactions. However, analysis of the interactions proved that Matthew was highly resilient in the face of

319

difficulty, and emerged with a stronger sense of himself as a reader. As described in chapter 4, Nora provided books for the guided reading portions of the lesson that were beyond Matthew’s instructional level. Matthew persisted in the oral reading of these texts despite their difficulties, and adopted proficiency for oral reading as part of his

literate identity (Interview #3, 10/9/06). Although the books he read aloud were beyond

his instructional level, the support Nora provided during the oral reading, such as partner

reading, echo reading, and word solving clues, enabled Matthew to complete the task. As

a reader who rarely finished reading books after he had started them (Nora Interview #1,

6/20/06), the act of completing a book may have given him the sense of accomplishment

he needed to boost his confidence in his abilities as a reader. Matthew’s resilience was

masked by brittle behaviors and comments, but his resilience in the face of difficulty

enabled him to emerge as successful, according to his own and Nora’s definitions. The

example of Matthew supports Johnston and Costello’s statement that even struggling

readers may be resilient in the face of adversity. Johnston (2004) encourages the

evaluation of students’ verbal responses to challenging learning situations to determine

their resilience or brittleness. Students who respond by accepting challenges and

persisting with the task may be considered resilient learners. Students who give up easily

in the face of difficulty may be considered brittle learners. By evaluating students’ brittle

or resilient learning dispositions through interest inventories, interviews, and observation

of their responses to difficulty, teachers of struggling readers can better understand

students’ responses to challenging learning tasks.

320

Categories of identity taken on by the students. This study aligns with the

discussion of Gee (2000-2001) of the four ways of looking at identity, as natural,

institutional, produced by discourse, or as part of affinity groups. Natural identity

includes identities with which people are born. Institutional identities are those that are

assigned to people by societal institutions, such as schools. Identities produced by

discourse are those identities assigned to people by others, and identities produced by

affinity groups are those with which people align themselves based on their interests, or

affinities. The students, through the ways in which they participated in the interactions

with their teachers, challenged the natural and institutional identities that had been

ascribed to them as struggling readers by displaying and exploring identities formed by

discourse and affinities. For example, Maggie challenged views of herself as a struggling

reader through her alignment with certain peer groups and by claiming an identity

produced by discourse as being accepted by others who were good readers, as she did in

the third interview (10/9/06). Maggie displayed identity based on her interests in sports,

dance, and social groups, rather than that of a student struggling with reading. As an

aspect of social identity, literate identity is constructed through layers of social

interactions within literacy events. Within the literacy events analyzed for this study, the

interactions that occurred between the teacher and student revealed a variety of aspects of

the student’s literate identity.

The Intercontextuality of the Interactions

Identity is not a stable process of development. As this study shows, it shifts

across interactions and is negotiated by the participants. In this study, identity construction was a response to instructional interactions between the teachers and the

321

students. Therefore, this study makes an important contribution to the research literature by providing a perspective on how the construction of identity occurs as struggling readers negotiate instructional interactions with their teachers. The construction of identity occurred within the context of the interactions, but was not done in isolation.

Students brought previous understandings about their literate identities from past and present contexts other than the one-to-one interactions which influenced the ways in which they responded to their teachers. This study illuminated the connection between the academic interactions, prior experiences of the student, and the development of literate identity, which built on previous research on identity development (Alvermann,

2001b; Chapman & Tunmer, 2001; Gee, 2000-2001; Wortham, 2006).

Key to relating the microanalysis of short segments of interaction that I conducted to the larger corpus of data is this understanding that interactions were

“intercontextually” (Leander, 2001) linked across space and time. The interactions were co-produced by teachers and students, influenced by the histories they both brought with them. This finding also supports Bahktin’s (1981) notion of the dialogic construction of interactions across boundaries of space and time. Analysis of another segment of interaction would reveal similar types of interactions, while also adding new perspectives on them.

The intercontextuality of the interactions has important implications for teachers of struggling readers. Students, particularly those identified as struggling readers, may have had negative experiences with reading previously, which inform their views of themselves as capable of becoming independent readers, If teachers can become aware of these experiences through talking with the student, the parents, or past teachers, they

322

can structure interactions that are sensitive to this fact. In this study, the teachers were

extensively aware of students’ background experiences with academic tasks, particularly

reading tasks, and were able to structure interactions that were sensitive to this

knowledge. Although this research was conducted within the context of one-to-one

interactions, the intercontextuality of teacher-student interactions means that classroom

teachers can use this study to inform the construction of interactions that are sensitive to students’ prior experiences with reading.

Role of out-of-school literacies. This study also supports recent work which relates to the essential role students’ out-of-school literacies play in academic contexts

(Alvermann, 2007; Gallego & Hollingsworth, 2000; Hinchman, Alvermann, Boyd, Brozo

& Vacca, 2003; Mallette, Henk, Waggoner, & DeLaney, 2005; O’Brien, 1998). The students in this study had a wide variety of out-of-school literacies, from video game playing to ballet to basketball, and the degree to which they were considered by their teachers impacted their identity processes. Alvermann (2007) states that students’

identities as readers both mediate and are mediated by “social interactions with teachers

who take an in interest in free-time literacy practices” (p. 8). This was illustrated by the

case of Annie and Maggie, in which Annie did not honor Maggie’s goal of competing

through reading. Although Annie selected books that reflected Maggie’s interests in

soccer and dance, by not respecting her definition of reading as competition, Annie

missed a powerful opportunity to motivate Maggie to want to become a better reader.

Matthew mentioned in his first interview that he enjoyed playing video games in his

spare time (6/24/06), but this was never brought into the lessons as a way to connect the

literacies in Matthew’s life.

323

According to Gee (1996), “multiple literacies” involve the many uses of language

and encompass the varying ways people think, speak, interact, and value within particular social settings. One type of multiple literacy is community (Gallego & Hollingsworth,

2000) or out-of-school literacies. Students’ out-of-school literacies occur within particular social settings, and are not always reflected in academic environments

(Mallette et al., 2005), as the examples of Matthew and Maggie showed. Jack selected books about which Patrick was interested, but honoring students’ multiple literacies involves more than just matching interests and books. Jack’s goal of making Patrick a more constructive thinker about texts may have been better accomplished if he had identified and incorporated Patrick’s out-of-school literacies. Jenny selected books about

animals and baseball, two topics Ethan was passionate about, and allowed him to insert

his existing knowledge into their discussions, using it to help him be successful in

reading the book. In doing so, she went beyond simply reflecting his out-of-school

literacies in the lessons, but also made them an integral part of the academic interactions.

Designing learning contexts in which students’ out-of-school literacies are integrated has

the potential to increase student motivation, engagement, and skills for reading (Gallego

& Hollingsworth, 2000; Mallette et al., 2005). Like culturally relevant teaching, which

Ladson-Billings (1992) describes as a method of teaching that “fosters and sustains the

students’ desire to choose academic success in the face of so many competing options”

(p. 313), learning contexts which rely on students’ multiple literacies motivate and empower students. This study supports this claim, and extends it by demonstrating how interactions are intercontextually linked, in which students’ out-of-school literacies are inherently a part of academic interactions, whether they are honored or not. Implications

324

for teachers include designing learning contexts which place the out-of-school literacies of struggling readers at the forefront of instruction, by identifying, incorporating, and honoring them within academic interactions.

Connection between identity and learning. A recent study by Wortham (2006) emphasized the connection between social identification and academic learning. As

Wortham states, “Although many have pointed out the co-occurrence of academic and non-academic activities in classrooms, significant dispute remains about how to conceptualize relations between the two” (p. 1). Wortham’s study of two teachers’

English classes discusses how academic learning and social identification can “overlap and partly constitute each other” (p. 1). This study supports Wortham’s work by providing an account of how literate identity developed within the context of academic interactions surrounding literacy events between a student and a teacher. A critical element to Wortham’s study was the notion that models of identity persist, yet also change across space and time. This study addressed Wortham’s call to “investigate empirically how a model of identity can take distinctive form in a local context and how that locally inflected model is applied to individuals in specific ways” (p. 8). The changing nature of identity was critical to understanding students’ processes of identity in the present study, as students’ literate identities took on specific forms based on the context of the tutoring sessions. As students identified as struggling readers by their teachers, they responded to this model of identity in distinct ways.

The data collected in the fall provided further evidence for Wortham’s claim that models of identity are present in different forms dependent upon the context. For all 4 of the students, their identities as struggling readers was not manifest in exactly the same

325

way as they had been in the summer. For example, Maggie’s definition of reading as a

way to compete was given more opportunities to be practiced in the fall within a class of

students her age. In her interview in the fall, Maggie was very articulate about how she

measured up with her peers, including herself among the good readers (10/9/06). In the

summer, Maggie was not able to practice her definition of reading as a way to compete.

Maggie was seen as a student who would struggle with reading in both contexts, as the interview with her new teacher showed (10/9/06), but her literate identity was transformed by the context. For all 4 of these students, their identity as struggling readers

followed them across contexts, but the ways in which it affected their own processes of

literate identity were dependent upon the specific factors present within each context.

The findings of this study that related the students’ processes of identity

construction to the interactions they had with their teachers support Vygotsky’s

conception of the zone of proximal development as shifting control from the teacher to

the student throughout the learning process. In addition, Vygotsky (1978) espoused the

social aspects of learning, emphasizing that it is through the interaction with other people

that we become who we are in the social world. This study has supported and extended this view. Through interaction with their teachers, students in this study became not only who they are in the social world, but also who they might be. The instructional

interactions afforded opportunities to explore multiple possibilities for their identity

processes.

Summary

This section has discussed the findings from this study in light of relevant

research. The role of the teachers’ perspectives on struggling readers was found to

326

significantly influence the types of interactions that occurred. Matches between beliefs and instruction, the views of disability held by the teacher, and the influence of the university course were found to be significant in producing the types of interactions that occurred. The students’ disposition towards learning and the literate identities they brought to the interactions were found to play a role in the types of interactions that

occurred, as well. Finally, the interactions were found to be intercontextually linked

across space and time, influencing the types of interactions that occurred and the ways in

which the students’ literate identities shifted in response to the interactions. The next

sections will discuss the limitations of the study and recommendations for future

research.

Limitations of the Study

This study examined the ways in which interactions between teachers and

students in a one-to-one tutoring situation influenced the identity process of students

identified as struggling readers. The design of this study was based on principles of

quality qualitative research, but limitations in the design and implementation of the

collection and analysis of the data were unavoidable.

Situated within one-to-one tutoring situations, rather than within classroom

situations, this study does not reflect the ways in which interactions between teachers and

students influence identity processes within classroom interactions. The context for this

study was selected purposefully (Patton, 1990), based on my prior experiences teaching

the course. I knew the structure of the course well and was able to select 4 teachers from

a class of teachers whom I had gotten to know through face-to-face interaction in class.

327

The fact that the teachers worked with students in one-to-one situations was also a strength of this study, as it allowed for the examination of how the teachers interacted with a struggling reader when the distractions of a busy classroom were removed. By following the students into their classrooms in the fall, I was able to examine how the one-to-one interactions had influenced their participation in their classrooms. As a study

of interactions between teachers and students in academic situations, this study may be

applied to one-to-one situations within classrooms, such as teachers conducting reading

or writing conferences with single students from their classes. This study did not directly

examine the specific interactions between the teachers and students within classroom

situations.

All 4 of the student participants in this study were of Caucasian, upper middle

class backgrounds. None of the students was learning English as a second language. As

students learning English as a second language are an intricate aspect to classrooms

today, this was a limitation to the generalizability of this study.

My presence during this study was limited to the class meetings and tutoring

sessions. I did not examine how the students explored their identities in other situations,

such as at home and within interactions with peers. This limited the results of this study

to the identity processes of students within one-to-one tutoring situations.

Finally, I studied the identity processes of these students over a 6-month period,

which is a relatively short time period in the life of a child. Examining identity processes

within this specific context and over this specific time period met my goals for this study,

but I was not able to track the students’ identity processes beyond the time limits of this

study.

328

This study’s limitations relate to its goals of examining the experiences of four teacher-student dyads in interacting with one another within a one-to-one tutoring situation. By presenting “thick description” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 316) of the individual cases, I have attempted to detail their experiences for the reader to determine the extent to which they can be generalized to other situations and contexts.

Recommendations for Future Research

Examining these limitations has informed the recommendations I have for future research beyond the results of this particular study. Replications of this study using different perspectives on the analysis of the data and in different environments would add to the understandings developed regarding the identity development of struggling readers.

The students and teachers who participated in this study were all Caucasian and of upper middle class backgrounds. Future research is needed that examines the identity processes of students who struggle with reading who also come from a variety of backgrounds, interacting with teachers who also represent a variety of backgrounds. This study found that the identity processes of the students were intercontextually linked. By studying teachers and students from a variety of cultural and social backgrounds, perspective may be gained on how different contexts influence the development of literate identity.

This study examined the role of the teachers’ perspectives on the assessment, evaluation, and instruction of struggling readers in the interactions. It was found that a perfect match did not exist between teachers’ views of struggling readers and the instructional interactions. Future studies should examine the role of teachers’

329

perspectives on struggling readers within regular classroom instruction. It would be interesting to examine the decisions of the teachers within their regular classrooms to determine the extent to which they match what occurred in the one-to-one situation. By examining the role of teachers’ perspectives on struggling readers within classroom contexts, further implications for the role this perspective plays in teacher-student interactions can be determined. This would build on the research of Johnston (2004), who discussed the important role of teacher language use on student learning and identity.

In addition to examining teachers’ perspectives on the assessment, evaluation, and instruction of struggling readers, future research should also examine the processes teachers go through as they identify struggling readers in their classrooms. As the research on the different models of disability showed, disability may be defined according to a deficit or a cultural model (Alvermann, 2001b; Coles, 1989; Deno, 1970;

Emihovich, 1994; McDermott & Varenne, 1995; D. Taylor, 1988). The teachers in this study were found to use assessments which informed their understanding of the students’ social backgrounds, but future research could more critically examine the ways in which teachers define struggling readers and how these definitions influence their instruction.

The importance of characterizing the identities of struggling readers cannot be overstated. This process does not define preset categories of identities of struggling readers, but the cases provided in this study constructed a picture of identity development of four struggling readers. Future studies should show how identities change in response

to instruction and how identities influence how students function in different classroom

330

environments. This study showed how one-to-one teacher-student interactions allowed for the development of certain identities, while also limited others. Future research should build on previous research on identity development (Alvermann, 2001b; Gee,

2000-2001; Wortham, 2006) and examine how classroom environments allow certain identities to develop over others.

In this study, I followed the students into their classrooms in the fall, conducting an interview with the student, an interview with the current teacher, an observation of the student in a language arts class, and collecting assessment data. Future studies should examine the ways in which students continue to examine their literate identities across a school year, as Wortham (2006) did. Identity development is an on-going process, so following students for an entire school year would provide an understanding of how students who struggle with reading negotiate their literate identities within a variety of academic contexts.

Finally, future research needs to respond to the call set forth by Alvermann (2007) and furthered by this study. Alvermann challenges educators to connect students out-of- school literacies with in-school ones in authentic and meaningful ways. Future studies should examine the ways in which students explore their identities across contexts, from one-to-one interactions to interactions within classrooms, to out-of-school contexts such as extracurricular activities, home environments, and other social arenas, to build on the line of research concerning the importance of students’ out-of-school literacies discussed previously. This study has demonstrated the complex literate lives students who are struggling with reading lead. Future research should examine the impact on student

331

learning and identity development of teaching methods that authentically integrate the

out-of-school literacies of students who struggle with reading with those they are asked to learn within school contexts.

Summary

The results of this study showed that interactions predicated on the goal of creating more independent readers produced unique spaces for shifts in identity to occur in the students. Teachers’ teaching styles and beliefs about struggling readers contributed to the types of interactions that occurred. It is important that teachers are aware that the interactions they initiate impact students’ literate identities. When students are given space to explore assigned, perceived, and lived identities within learning situations, their sense of agency concerning their own learning can increase. A sense of agency gives students control over their own learning and a confidence in their abilities that can help them to combat the negative effects of socially assigned labels such as “struggling reader.” My goal in completing this study was to provide a way to view the identity development of struggling readers that positions it as a unique and critical process.

Together with future research studies, the understandings gained through this study will

hopefully impact the ways in which teachers choose to structure interactions with

struggling readers to foster the development of strong literate identities.

332

APPENDIX A

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

333

Teacher Interviews:

• Describe the type of behaviors you would see in a student you consider a

struggling reader.

• Why did you choose to work with this particular student?

• Describe this student as a reader.

• When the summer is over, what do you hope that this student has accomplished?

• What will you do over the course of the tutoring sessions to accomplish this?

• How will you know when these goals have been achieved?

• Some people think that if we just had enough money and scientists working on the

problem we could figure out the best way to teach struggling readers. What do

you think about that?

• In what ways does assessment data influence your instructional decisions?

• Successful readers do well on standardized tests. Do you agree or disagree?

Why?

• What elements constitute an effective assessment tool? Why?

• How do you think assessment results influence children’s attitudes toward

reading, and toward learning in general?

• Can you give me an example of the types of assessment you use on a regular

basis? Why do you use these regularly? How do you use the results?

• What teacher behaviors would you identify as “effective” in the area of

assessment and intervention for struggling readers? Why?

• Reading is reading aloud with accuracy and fluency. Do you agree with this

statement? Why or why not? 334

• Reading can be defined as an enjoyment of books. Do you agree with this

statement? Why or why not?

• How do you define reading?

• Is there anything else you would like to discuss that we have not mentioned?

Student Interviews:

• Tell me about yourself.

• What are your favorite things to do in school?

• Tell me about your reading and writing that’s not a part of school.

• Do you ever talk about books outside of school? With who? What kinds of

things do you talk about?

• What are some of your goals for your reading this summer?

• What do you do well as a reader?

• What would you like to improve as a reader?

• Tell me about a good book you have read recently.

• Where is your favorite place to read? Why?

• Who is someone who you think of as a good reader? What makes that person

a good reader?

• What is one of the best ways you can think of to spend your spare time?

• What are some books you hope to read in the future?

• How would your teacher describe you as a reader?

• How would your friends describe you as a reader?

335

• How would your parents describe you as a reader?

• Describe yourself as a reader.

Additional student interview questions for fall:

• Tell me about your new teacher.

• What do you like best about this new classroom?

• What are you most excited about in reading class this year?

• What are you most worried about?

• What are some things you hope to learn in reading this year?

• Who are some of the good readers in your class? What do they do that makes

them good readers?

• How has our work from the summer changed the way you read?

336

APPENDIX B

SAMPLE OF NOTES TAKEN DURING TRANSCRIPTION

337

Nora Ok, very good, so let’s keep reading. 42:00 Matthew reads. His reading is smooth but unexpressive. It is more expressive than previous days. He stumbles over a few words, but usually self corrects. Nora assists him with a few words. Matthew Ok, I have a question, why would the 43:15 parents cram wet towels under spaces and stuff? They talk about the answer. 44:05 Matthew keeps reading. Nora points at words that he misses, asking him to say them again, or look at the word. 52:00 She asks for a summary. Matthew gives an accurate summary. 58:35 She asks for another summary. Matthew gives her an accurate summary. Most of the word solving that goes on involves either self correction or Nora pointing at the word and helping him to sound it out, sound by sound. He catches some of his errors, and the ones he does not, Nora points out to him. 1:04 Nora reads the picture caption. Matthew volunteers to read the next two! He stumbles on a few words in the second caption. When Matthew struggles on a word, he hunches over the paper and puts his hand on his head. Nora All right, good, so what have we learned 1:10:35 now? Matthew gives her a summary. Nora asks him a few comprehension checking questions that he responds to accurately.

338

APPENDIX C

TRANSCRIPT FROM ANNIE’S SESSION SELECTED FOR MICROANALYSIS

339

Annie Ok, poetry is a very good way to practice fluency, so what we’re going to do today, is I’m going to read a poem, then I’m going to have you practice it a few times by yourself, then you’re going to read it. Maggie Mmmm hmmmmm Maggie leans her head down on her arm on the table. Annie Ok, and I picked this poem, I’m getting sick of peanut butter, because remember the other day we were talking about how you always eat peanut butter sandwiches… Maggie And jelly! Annie And jelly sandwiches, and I said don’t you ever get sick of those? So when I saw this poem, I thought this would be a good one to read with Maggie. So I’ll read it first and then we’ll practice it a couple times together and then I’ll have you do it yourself, so you can just listen this time and just follow along… Maggie What’s it called? Annie If I Ran the School, it’s one of those free Scholastic books that um teachers get, you’ll probably get one this year. Maggie Yeah, I got one. Annie So kind of just follow along, watch with your eyes as I read so you learn any words that you’re not sure of. 31:49Annie begins reading and Maggie follows along with her eyes. Annie That’s kind of what you probably think Mrs. Ireton that’s all she knows how to make, huh, cause that’s all we eat! Ok do you want to read it with me this time, or do you want me to read it one more time to you? Maggie Um, I’ll read it. Annie Ok, let’s read it together –we’ll practice. They begin reading together. Annie finger points. Annie DO you want to read it one more time together, and then I’ll have you do it by yourself? Maggie Sure 340

They begin reading right away. Annie Ok, you ready to practice it by yourself? Maggie Should I read it out loud? Annie Do you want to, why don’t you whisper read it first, then you’ll practice it out loud. Do you know how to whisper read (models)? Ok, so practice whisper reading. Maggie sits back in her chair and Annie sits up to make some notes. Maggie whisper reads. Annie Ok, ready to read it aloud? Maggie Mmm hmmmm Annie OK Maggie begins reading, Annie Ok, why don’t we take a break, go get a drink of water, and then we come back, we’ll read it again then move on. Maggie Ok, are we gonna finish this whole book of poems? Annie Noooo…. Maggie That’s what I thought. Annie Yeah, well Maggie remember we’re not just reading to write things on our Maggie yeah Annie List. But, we’ll read plenty and tomorrow you’ll have some, but today we need to focus more on fluency and things instead of just trying to finish the book, OK? Maggie OK…. Annie So, keep your focus maybe on what we’re reading today not on the library thing, OK Maggie OK! She says this cheerily. Annie So, why don’t you get a drink and then we’ll continue. BREAK Annie OK, you ready to try this one one more time? 40:00 Maggie Yep! Annie We’ll do it together, then you’ll try it one more time by yourself. Maggie OK They read the poem together.

341

Annie Ok, one more time then we’ll move on to the next poem. Maggie Should I read it out loud? Annie Out loud! I want you to practice it out loud to Annie seems frustrated. work on fluency. Maggie reads the poem. Annie Very good, Maggie you read much more fluently that last time, your reading was much more smooth, and you were very familiar with the words. OK, the next one I picked is F’s are Fabulous, I thought this one was a fun one since you know everyone just got report cards, so this one is kind of a fun one. And what happens is this boy gets kind of a pretty bad report card, and what he does, is he switching it around for what everything stands for, so it’s kind of funny. So, I’ll read it first, then we’ll read it together. Annie reads the poem and Maggie follows along. Annie Isn’t that funny how he switched it around? Maggie Mm hmmm Maggie barely acknowledges this. Annie Ok, so and if you notice at the beginning and end we have our exclamation marks, so we want to say those with a little more excitement. And then we have a couple with question marks, so we kind of want to raise our voice, which you’ve been doing a good job of kind of raising your voice up at the end to make it sound like a question. So do you want to hold it? It is easier for you to read if you hold it? Maggie Yeah, should I read it in silence or… Annie No, we’ll read it together first. We’ll practice together a couple times. They start reading the poem. Annie Ok, you want to practice, and you won’t read silently, just whisper read like this, when you’re practicing. You want to hear yourself. Annie Keep whisper reading! 47:18 Maggie is not really whisper reading – Annie looks away and rolls her eyes, looks through the papers. 342

Annie Make sure you’re whisper reading. 48: 00 She looks at Maggie with arms folded, looks away and makes some notes. Annie Ready to read it out loud. Ok, give it a try. 48:30 Maggie reads the poem with minimal assistance from Annie – she self corrects on her own. Maggie Can I go to the restroom please? Annie Yes, and then we’ll try it one more time Annie makes some notes. together and then by yourself when you get back. Annie Ok. Let’s read it together one more time, and then you’ll do it by yourself, and then we’ll move on to our word work activity, OK? Maggie Ok Annie I know it’s a lot of reading out loud over and over again, but it really does make a difference. Ok, F’s are Fabulous. They read the poem. Annie finger points as she reads. Annie You know what, I changed my mind, I’m gonna read one, this is what’s called kind of a stanza, I’m gonna read one, then you read it after me, OK. So, I’ll read this and you just kind of copy what I read. Annie Now you go ahead. Annie reads the first stanza, and they continue in this manner. Annie Ok very good Maggie ,and you were trying 58:35 very hard, so if you ever want to practice like that reading poems, maybe have your parents read them and you read them after, it is a good thing to do.

343

APPENDIX D

TRANSCRIPT FROM NORA’S SESSION SELECTED FOR MICROANALYSIS

344

Nora Ok, I have a couple of words here, a 34:42 couple of vocabulary words, so a couple of things that might come up in the article, so I’m just gonna read some words to you, and if you know what the word is, just kind of describe it to me, it doesn’t have to be a perfect definition, because if you’re not sure, we’ll talk about it and figure it out. All right the first one is drought, They talk about drought. Nora What about migration? Matthew Going to a different country? Nora Ok, what else could it mean? Matthew Moving to another place? Nora Ok, good, you’re on fire today! Great. What about the word impoverished? Matthew Um…… Nora What if I write it down for you, so that you can see it? Does it sound like any other word that maybe you’ve heard before? Sometimes if you look at other parts of a word, it may make sense? Matthew No Nora No, ok, someone that is impoverished, it’s usually a person that is impoverished, it means that they’re poor, do you see the word poverty in here? Matthew Oh yeah Nora Ok, so that word might come up in our reading, so we want to know what it means, so that it makes sense to us, OK? Matthew Ok Nora All right, one more thing before we start reading. Matthew Wouldn’t the sun’s rays be a natural disaster, because it causes cancer? They discuss the issue of UV rays being a natural disaster. Nora praises him for his good thinking. Nora Ok, can you tell me the difference between cause, and effect? Do you know what cause is, like what happens? Matthew Ok, what happens, and then… 345

Matthew Wait, or is that the effect? Nora So, if I say what is the cause of the accident? Matthew That the driver was going too fast Nora Ok, so what is that, what’s another word we can use for that? Matthew Speeding Nora No, so think about if I am the police officer and you are an observer watching the accident, and I say what’s the cause of the accident, what’s another word I could say instead of cause? Give me a good example Matthew What happened Nora Or what else, what’s the reason why….so what causes the problem, when we start reading, we’re going to think about what caused something. And then what’s the effect Matthew What happened Nora Ok, yeah, maybe what happened, we kind of talked about that a little bit here today, so because of something that happened Matthew Death, destruction of homes, something like that Nora Ok, yeah, so when we’re reading today we’re going to be talking about cause and effect, what’s the cause of something, and then what’s the effect. So what might be the effect about whatever we’re reading about? So keep this in mind as we’re reading, because we’re going to talk about it as we read, you know that, the article is kind of set up in this structure, OK? So, things to think about, we have lots of talking to do before we read, now we can read the article, this is sort of a science day today, I didn’t do that on purpose, but we kind of have a theme going on. I’m gonna have you read, and think about as we read, I want you to think about how we’re saying our words and pay attention to communication. So go 346

ahead give it a start. Matthew reads the title. Nora Ok, so I want to stop you for just a second, you’re read the title and the subtitle, so what do you think this article might be about? Matthew He makes a guess. Nora Ok, very good, so let’s keep reading. 42:00 Matthew reads. His reading is smooth but unexpressive. It is more expressive than previous days. He stumbles over a few words, but usually self corrects. Nora assists him with a few words. Matthew Ok, I have a question, why would the 43:15 parents cram wet towels under spaces and stuff? They talk about the answer. 44:05 Matthew keeps reading. Nora points at words that he misses, asking him to say them again, or look at the word. 52:00 She asks for a summary. Matthew gives an accurate summary. 58:35 She asks for another summary. Matthew gives her an accurate summary. Most of the word solving that goes on involves either self correction or Nora pointing at the word and helping him to sound it out, sound by sound. He catches some of his errors, and the ones he does not, Nora points out to him. 1:04 Nora reads the picture caption. Matthew volunteers to read the next two! He stumbles on a few words in the second caption. When Matthew struggles on a word, he hunches over the paper and puts his hand on his head. 347

Nora All right, good, so what have we learned 1:10:35 now? Matthew gives her a summary. Nora asks him a few comprehension checking questions that he responds to accurately. Nora Ok, well, remember now, you can keep 1:11:38 your article there if you need it, we talked about cause and effect, so we’re gonna fill out a little chart here, thinking about cause and effect, so look at how this chart is set up with the cause up here and the arrow down to the effect. So maybe kind of take a minute and think back through the article, and think about some of the ideas that might go in here. Matthew So it goes cause, effect, cause, effect Nora Yeah, kind of the cause here, the effects here, and maybe there were even more effects here. Matthew Ok I got it. Nora Got it, ok, you’re ready! She gives him the pencil and paper. Matthew Well I can’t write it, can you write it? Nora Ok, yeah. He gives her a cause and effect. Matthew In Middle America, right? Oh, I’ll go back and check. Nora Yeah, you go back and check and I’ll write. He lists a few more cause and effects. Nora Ok, skim back over what I just wrote. Anything else that we might be missing that might go in these places? Nora verbally points out a part in the article that she wants him to focus on. Matthew immediately identifies the cause and effect. Nora Ok, check that over, see what you think, did we get everything? Matthew I think so 348

Matthew Right here, that’s not really the main cause, so would that be ok or should we write another one? Nora Ok, what do you think, should we add another one? Matthew No Nora No, ok, I think it’s all right that we kind of mushed it all together. Ok, so think about as we read…. Nora reviews what was read in the article. She reviews the structure of cause and effect in the article.

Matthew That would be scary. Nora It would be very scary. Ok, now for a little bit of writing. Matthew Oh no! Nora Yeah, I am going to make you try and see how you do, and you may want to reread this to yourself before you start this, and you said this was an eyewitness account…. They complete a writing activity. He writes a journal entry from the perspective of a person in the dust bowl. Matthew really gets into this and writes for a long while. (1:19:20 – 1:35:33) Matthew Ok Nora Ok, did you like the article? Matthew Yeah

349

APPENDIX E

CONSENT LETTERS

350

May 15, 2006

Dear Parents and Guardians,

My name is Mary-Kate Sableski, and I am a doctoral student at The Ohio State University, as well as an instructor at the University of Dayton. I am currently conducting research for my dissertation, and am asking for the assistance of you and your child in this study. I am conducting research on how students identified as struggling readers see themselves as readers, in particular how interactions with a teacher in a tutoring situation influences students’ views of themselves as readers. Your child has been identified as someone who struggles with reading by a teacher enrolled in the course I am teaching, Assessment and Evaluation of Reading Difficulties. You have already agreed to allow your child to participate in one on one tutoring sessions this summer with this teacher to help improve his or her reading skills. If you also agree to allow your child to participate in this research study, I will be observing the tutoring sessions, which will occur twice a week for four to five weeks. These tutoring sessions will also be video and/or audio recorded. Additional data for the study will include transcripts of interviews the teacher conducts with your child, samples of your child’s written work, and several observations conducted by the teacher in your child’s classroom this coming fall. I will use a pseudonym for your child in all written reports of the data, and no personally identifiable data will be shared. In appreciation for your child’s participation, s/he will receive a children’s book. Additional details about the study may be found by reading the attached consent form. If you agree to allow your child to participate in this study, please return the signed consent form in the self-addressed stamped envelope enclosed. If you have additional questions about the study, please do not hesitate to contact me at (937) 298-9714, or email me at [email protected]. You may also contact my advisor, Dr. Patricia Scharer, at (614) 292-2480 or [email protected]. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Mary-Kate Sableski

351

The Ohio State University Assent to Participate in Research

The Development of Literate Identities in Students Identified as Study Title: Struggling Readers Researcher: Dr. Patricia Scharer/Mary Catherine Sableski

Sponsor: Not applicable

• You are being asked to be in a research study. Studies are done to find better ways to treat people or to understand things better. • This form will tell you about the study to help you decide whether or not you want to participate. • You should ask any questions you have before making up your mind. You can think about it and discuss it with your family or friends before you decide. • It is okay to say “No” if you don’t want to be in the study. If you say “Yes” you can change your mind and quit being in the study at any time without getting in trouble. • If you decide you want to be in the study, an adult (usually a parent) will also need to give permission for you to be in the study.

1. What is this study about?

This study is about kids who want to improve their reading. It is about how best to teach them and how they feel about themselves as readers.

2. What will I need to do if I am in this study?

You will need to work with your teacher for two hours twice a week for four to five weeks. Your teacher will come to your classroom three to five weeks after your school year has started to talk with you and observe your class to see how you are doing with your reading.

3. How long will I be in the study?

You will be in this study from May, 2006 to September, 2006.

4. Can I stop being in the study?

You may stop being in the study at any time.

352

5. What bad things might happen to me if I am in the study?

We do not think anything bad will happen to you if you are in the study.

6. What good things might happen to me if I am in the study?

You will be able to work with your teacher to improve your reading.

7. Will I be given anything for being in this study?

You will be given a book to take home.

8. Who can I talk to about the study?

For questions about the study you may contact Dr. Patricia Scharer at (614) 292- 2480 or Mary-Kate Sableski at (937) 298-9714.

To discuss other study-related questions with someone who is not part of the research team, you may contact Ms. Sandra Meadows in the Office of Responsible Research Practices at 1-800-678-6251.

353

Signing the assent form

I have read (or someone has read to me) this form. I have had a chance to ask questions before making up my mind. I want to be in this research study.

AM/PM Signature or printed name of subject Date and time

Investigator/Research Staff

I have explained the research to the participant before requesting the signature above. There are no blanks in this document. A copy of this form has been given to the participant or his/her representative.

Mary Catherine Sableski Printed name of person obtaining Signature of person obtaining assent assent

AM/PM Date and time

This form must be accompanied by an IRB approved parental permission form signed by a parent/guardian.

354

The Ohio State University Parental Permission For Child’s Participation in Research

The Development of Literate Identities in Students Identified Study Title: as Struggling Readers Researcher: Dr. Patricia Scharer/Mary Catherine Sableski

Sponsor: Not applicable

This is a parental permission form for research participation. It contains important information about this study and what to expect if you permit your child to participate. Your child’s participation is voluntary. Please consider the information carefully. Feel free to discuss the study with your friends and family and to ask questions before making your decision whether or not to permit your child to participate. If you permit your child to participate, you will be asked to sign this form and will receive a copy of the form.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to explore the identity development of students who are struggling with reading. Your child is being asked to participate in this study because s/he is being tutored by a teacher who is a student in the course, EDT 606/607 – Assessment and Evaluation of Reading Difficulties.

Procedures/Tasks: Your child will be observed by the researcher during one-on-one tutoring sessions with his or her teacher. These tutoring sessions will be audio and video recorded. These recordings will be used by the researcher for data collection purposes and will be stored on the researcher’s computer with password protection. Your child’s teacher will visit your child in the fall, three to five weeks after school has begun, to interview him or her once and observe him or her one to three times in the classroom.

Duration: Your child’s participation in this study will last from May 2006, to September 2006. Your child will be audio and videotaped during the tutoring sessions with the teacher, and interviews will be audio taped. Your child may leave the study at any time. If you or your child decides to stop participation in the study, there will be no penalty and neither you nor your child will lose any benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. Your decision will not affect your future relationship with The Ohio State University.

355

Risks and Benefits:

There are no anticipated risks as a result of your child’s participation in this study. Your child will receive one-on-one tutoring from a trained teacher for the duration of his or her participation in this study. In addition, the results of this study will inform the larger educational community regarding the identification, evaluation, and instruction of students who struggle with reading.

Confidentiality:

Efforts will be made to keep your child’s study-related information confidential. However, there may be circumstances where this information must be released. For example, personal information regarding your child’s participation in this study may be disclosed if required by state law. Also, your child’s records may be reviewed by the following groups (as applicable to the research):

• Office for Human Research Protections or other federal, state, or international regulatory agencies; • The Ohio State University Institutional Review Board or Office of Responsible Research Practices; • The sponsor, if any, or agency (including the Food and Drug Administration for FDA-regulated research) supporting the study.

Incentives: Your child will receive a book in gratitude for participation in this study. Your child will not be paid for participating in this study.

Participant Rights:

You or your child may refuse to participate in this study without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. If you or your child is a student or employee at Ohio State, your decision will not affect your grades or employment status.

If you and your child choose to participate in the study, you may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits. By signing this form, you do not give up any personal legal rights your child may have as a participant in this study.

An Institutional Review Board responsible for human subjects research at The Ohio State University reviewed this research project and found it to be acceptable, according to applicable state and federal regulations and University policies designed to protect the rights and welfare of participants in research.

Contacts and Questions: For questions, concerns, or complaints about the study you may contact Dr. Patricia Scharer at (614) 292-2480 or Mary-Kate Sableski at (937) 298-9714.

For questions about your child’s rights as a participant in this study or to discuss other study-related concerns or complaints with someone who is not part of the research team, you may contact Ms. Sandra Meadows in the Office of Responsible Research Practices at 1-800-678-6251. 356

If your child is injured as a result of participating in this study or for questions about a study-related injury, you may contact Dr. Patricia Scharer at (614) 292-2480 or Mary- Kate Sableski at (937) 298-9714.

Signing the parental permission form

I have read (or someone has read to me) this form and I am aware that I am being asked to provide permission for my child to participate in a research study. I have had the opportunity to ask questions and have had them answered to my satisfaction. I voluntarily agree to permit my child to participate in this study.

I am not giving up any legal rights by signing this form. I will be given a copy of this form.

Printed name of subject

Printed name of person authorized to provide permission Signature of person authorized to provide permission for for subject subject

AM/PM Relationship to the subject Date and time

Investigator/Research Staff

I have explained the research to the participant or his/her representative before requesting the signature(s) above. There are no blanks in this document. A copy of this form has been given to the participant or his/her representative.

Mary Catherine Sableski Printed name of person obtaining consent Signature of person obtaining consent

AM/PM Date and time

357

The Ohio State University Consent to Participate in Research

The Development of Literate Identities in Students Identified Study Title: as Struggling Readers Researcher: Dr. Patricia Schaer/Mary Catherine Sableski

Sponsor: Not applicable

This is a consent form for research participation. It contains important information about this study and what to expect if you decide to participate. Your participation is voluntary. Please consider the information carefully. Feel free to ask questions before making your decision whether or not to participate. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form and will receive a copy of the form.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to explore the identity development of students who are struggling with reading. You are being asked to participate in this research study because you are a student in the course, EDT 606/607 – Assessment and Evaluation of Reading Difficulties.

Procedures/Tasks: The procedures and tasks you will be asked to participate in are in addition to the tasks and procedures you have already agreed to by enrolling in the course, EDT 606/607. Class assignments, written reflections, and transcripts of on-line and in-class discussions will be used as data. Class discussions relevant to the research study will be audio and videotaped. If you agree and are selected to participate in the observations of the tutoring sessions, the co-investigator will conduct observations of these sessions, which will also be audio and videotaped. Participants in the observations will also be asked to participate in two interview sessions over the six week duration of this phase, once at the beginning and once at the end. In addition, as a participant in this study, you will also be asked to follow-up with your student in the fall by visiting his or her classroom three to five weeks after school has started. You will be asked to complete one interview (in addition to the two student interviews required for the course, conducted at the beginning and end of the tutoring sessions) and one to three observations of your student at this time. This task is optional if you choose not to participate in the study.

Duration: The duration of your participation in this study is from May 15, 2006, to September 2006. You will be audio and videotaped through class discussions. If you are selected and

358

agree to participate in observations of the tutoring sessions, you will be audio and videotaped while you are tutoring your student.

You may leave the study at any time. If you decide to stop participating in the study, there will be no penalty to you, and you will not lose any benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. Your decision will not affect your future relationship with The Ohio State University.

Risks and Benefits:

There are no anticipated risks to your involvement in this study. You will not benefit directly from participating in this study; however, the results of this research study may inform the larger educational community regarding the identification, evaluation and teaching of struggling readers.

Confidentiality:

Efforts will be made to keep your study-related information confidential. However, there may be circumstances where this information must be released. For example, personal information regarding your participation in this study may be disclosed if required by state law. Also, your records may be reviewed by the following groups (as applicable to the research):

Incentives:

You will not be paid to participate in the study. If you agree and are selected to participate in the observations of the tutoring sessions, you will receive a collection of children’s books for your classroom.

Participant Rights:

You may refuse to participate in this study without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. If you are a student or employee at Ohio State, your decision will not affect your grades or employment status. Your decision will also not affect the grade you receive for the courses, EDT 606 or EDT 607.

359

If you choose to participate in the study, you may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits. By signing this form, you do not give up any personal legal rights you may have as a participant in this study.

Contacts and Questions: For questions, concerns, or complaints about the study you may contact Dr. Patricia Scharer at (614) 292-2480 or Mary-Kate Sableski at (937) 298-9714.

For questions about your rights as a participant in this study or to discuss other study- related concerns or complaints with someone who is not part of the research team, you may contact Ms. Sandra Meadows in the Office of Responsible Research Practices at 1- 800-678-6251.

If you are injured as a result of participating in this study or for questions about a study- related injury, you may contact Dr. Patricia Scharer at (614) 292-2480 or Mary-Kate Sableski at (937) 298-9714.

360

Signing the consent form

I have read (or someone has read to me) this form and I am aware that I am being asked to participate in a research study. I have had the opportunity to ask questions and have had them answered to my satisfaction. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.

I am not giving up any legal rights by signing this form. I will be given a copy of this form.

Printed name of subject Signature of subject

AM/PM Date and time

Printed name of person authorized to Signature of person authorized to consent for subject (when applicable) consent for subject (when applicable)

AM/PM Relationship to the subject Date and time

Investigator/Research Staff

Mary Catherine Sableski Printed name of person obtaining Signature of person obtaining consent consent

AM/PM Date and time

361

APPENDIX F

Case Study Rubric Used for the University Course

362

EDT 607 Practicum in Reading Intervention Techniques

Practicum Assessment & Evaluation

Incl (1-4) Not Incl. Background Information (general information, surveys, interviews, etc.) ______

Formal Test Information (DIBELS, Gray Oral, WRAT, Slosson, etc.) ______

Informal Assessments ______QRI-4 (required) At least one from each area: ____Comprehension ____Word Identification/Word Meaning ____ Spelling/Writing ____Fluency

Three iterations of the Teaching-Learning Instrument, including: Lesson Plans ______Coded Transcripts ______Reflections ______

Student Work Samples ______*including student journal

Anecdotal Notes ______

Documentation of Time (36 hours total, specifically indicating time spent assessing/instructing the child, time spent on the TLI’s, etc.) * Signed by Parent/Guardian ______

Any additional information necessary ______

Formal Case Report (2 copies) ______

Score: ______Grade: ______

1=Below Average 2=Average 3=Good 4=Very Good/Excellent 35-36 = A 34 = A- 33 = B+ 31-32 = B 30 = B- 27-29 = C Below 27 = F

363

APPENDIX G

LITERACY LESSON FRAMEWORK

364

Literacy Lesson Framework

Familiar Reading: • independent level

Guided Reading:

Before • introduce book • set a purpose, (e.g., predicting, questioning, anticipation guide, etc.)

During • monitor purpose setting • strategy teaching

After • check predictions, questions, anticipation guide, etc. • extension activity

Writing Activity:

• shared/interactive writing • process writing

Word Work:

• word sort • making words

Book Sharing:

• teacher reads aloud

Reflection: • teacher reflects on what parts of the lesson went well, what did not go well, and explains plans for subsequent lessons

365

APPENDIX H

TEACHING-LEARNING INSTRUMENT CODES

366

367

368

LIST OF REFERENCES

Allington, R. L. (1980). Teacher interruption behaviors during primary-grade oral reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 371-377.

Allington, R. L. (1983). The reading instruction provided readers of differing reading abilities. Elementary School Journal, 83, 548-559.

Allington, R. L. (1994). What's special about special programs for children who find learning to read difficult? Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 95-115.

Allington, R. L. (2006). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research- based programs (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1989). School response to reading failure: Instruction for Chapter One and special education students in grades two, four, and eight. Elementary School Journal, 89, 529-542.

Allington, R. L., & Walmsley, S. A. (Eds.). (1995). No quick fix: Rethinking literacy programs in America's elementary schools. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Alvermann, D. E. (2001a). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Retrieved July 20, 2005, from http://www.nrconline.org/publications/alverwhite2.pdf

Alvermann, D. E. (2001b). Reading adolescents' reading identities: Looking back to see ahead. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44, 676-690.

Alvermann, D. E. (2007). Youth in the middle: Our guides to improved literacy instruction? Voices from the Middle, 14(2), 7-13.

369

Anderson, R. C. (1984). Some reflections on the acquisition of knowledge. Educational Researcher, 13(9), 5-10.

Angrosino, M. V., & Mays de Perez, K. A. (2000). Rethinking observation: From method to context. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 673-702). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bahktin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin, TX: The University of Texas Press.

Baker, J. A. (1999). Teacher-student interaction in urban at-risk classrooms: Differential behavior, relationship quality, and student satisfaction with school. The Elementary School Journal, 100, 57-70.

Baker, M. I. (2002). Reading resistance in middle school: What can be done? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45, 364-366.

Barone, D. (2004). Case-study research. In N. K. Duke & M. H. Mallette (Eds.), Literacy research methodologies (pp. 7-27). New York: Guilford Press.

Bear, D.R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S. R., & Johnston, F. (2003). Words their way. Boston: Prentice Hall.

Beers, K. (1998). Choosing not to read- understanding why some middle schoolers just say no. In K. Beers & B. G. Samuels (Eds.), Into focus: Understanding and creating middle school readers (pp. 37-63). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Beers, K. (2003). When kids can’t read: What teachers can do. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Bliss, J., & Askew, M. (1996). Effective teaching and learning: Scaffolding revisited. Oxford Review of Education, 22, 37-52.

370

Bloome, D. (1994). Reading as a social process in a middle school classroom. In D. Graddol, J. Maybin, & B. Stierer (Eds.), Researching language & literacy in social context (pp. 100-130). Bristol, PA: The Open University Press.

Bloome, D., & Katz, L. (1997). Literacy as social practice and classroom chronotypes. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 13, 205-226.

Bomer, R. (1999). Conferring with struggling readers: The test of our craft, courage, and hope. New Advocate, 12(1), 21-38.

Boynton, A., & Blevins, W. (2003). Teaching students to read nonfiction. New York: Scholastic Professional Books.

Broaddus, K., & Bloodgood, J. W. (1999). "We're supposed to already know how to teach reading": Teacher change to support struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 426-451.

Broaddus, K., & Ivey, G. (2002). Taking away the struggle to read in the middle grades. Middle School Journal, 34(2), 5-11.

Brophy, J. E. (1979). Teacher behavior and student learning. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 33-45.

Brophy, J. E. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational Research, 51, 5-32.

Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes and consequences. New York: Holt, Reinhart, & Winston.

Caldwell, J. S. & Leslie, L. (2005). Intervention strategies to follow informal reading inventory assessment: So what do I do now. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Carelli, M. G. (1998). Internalization, participation, and ethnocentrism. Human Development, 41, 355-359.

371

Carter, B., & Harris, K. (1982). What junior high students like in books. Journal of Reading, 26(1), 42-46.

Chapman, J. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (2003). Reading difficulties, reading-related self- perceptions, and strategies for overcoming negative self beliefs. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 5-24.

Childs, C. P., & Greenfield, P. M. (1980). Informal modes of learning and teaching: The case of Zinacenteco Weaving. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2; pp. 235-257). London: Academic Press.

Clay, M. M. (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.

Clay, M. M. (1994). Reading recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Clay, M. M. (1998). By different paths to common outcomes. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1984). The making of a reader. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Cohen, E. G. (1972). Sociology and the classroom: Setting the conditions for teacher- student interaction. Review of Educational Research, 42, 441-452.

Cole, M. (1985). The zone of proximal development: Where culture and cognition create each other. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition (pp. 162-179). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Coles, G. (1989). The learning mystique: A critical look at "learning disabilities." New York: Ballantine Books.

Crooks, T. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58, 438-481.

372

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

de Castell, S. (1999). On finding one’s place in the text: Literacy as a technology of self- formation. In W. Pinar (Ed.), Contemporary curriculum discourses: Twenty years of JCT (pp. 398-411). New York: P. Lang.

Dahl, K. L., Scharer, P., Lawson, L. L., & Grogan P. R. (2001). Rethinking phonics: Making the best teaching decisions. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: New Press.

Deno, E. (1970). Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional Children, 37, 229-237.

Dickmeyer, L. A., & Oddie, A. (1980). Basketball is for me. Minneapolis, MN: Lerner Publishing Group.

Dillon, D. R. (1989). Showing them that I want them to learn and that I care about who they are: A microethnography of the social organization of a secondary low- track English-reading classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 227-259.

Don’t wake the mummy! (n.d.) Retreived July, 2006 at www.readinga-z.com

Dudley-Marling, C. (2004). The social construction of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 482-489.

Duffy-Hester, A. M. (1999). Teaching struggling readers in elementary school classrooms: A review of classroom reading programs and principles for instruction. Reading Teacher, 52, 480-495.

373

Edmiston, B., Enciso, P., & King, M. (1987). Empowering readers and writers through drama: Narrative theater. Language Arts, 64, 219-228.

Egan-Robertson, A. (1998). Learning about culture, language, and power: Understanding relationships among personhood, literacy practices, and intertextuality. Journal of Literacy Research, 30, 449–487.

Emihovich, C. (1994). The language of testing: An ethnographic-sociolinguistic perspective on standardized tests. In K. E. Holland, D. Bloome, & J. W. Solsken (Eds.), Alternative perspectives in assessing children's language and literacy (pp. 33-54). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Enciso, P. E. (2001). Taking our seats: The consequences of positioning in reading assessments. Theory into Practice, 40, 166-174.

Feiffer, K. & Ingman, B. (2005). Double pink. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Fink, R. (2006). Why Jane and John couldn’t read – and how they learned: A new look at striving readers. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Florio-Ruane, S., & Morrell, E. (2004). Discourse analysis: Conversation. In N. K. Duke & M. H. Mallette (Eds.), Literacy research methodologies (pp. 46-61). New York: Guilford Press.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 645-672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gallego, M. A. & Hollingsworth, S. (2000). What counts as literacy: Challenging the school standard. New York: Teachers College Press.

374

Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (1990). Teaching mind in society: Teaching, schooling, and literate discourse. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 175-205). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). London: Taylor & Francis.

Gee, J. P. (2000-2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99-125.

Grant, L., & Rothenberg, J. (1986). The social enhancement of ability differences: Teacher-student interactions in first- and second-grade reading groups. The Elementary School Journal, 87, 29-49.

Green, J., & Stinson, S. (1999). Postpositivist research in dance. In S. H. Fraleigh & P. Hanstein (Eds.), Researching dance: Evolving modes of inquiry (pp. 91-123). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Guthrie, J. T. & Davis, M. H. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middle school through an engagement model of classroom practice. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 59-85.

Hanson, F. A. (1993). Testing testing: Social consequences of the examined life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Hasselbring, T. S. (1999). Read 180. New York: Scholastic.

Heap, J. (1980). What counts as reading: Limits to certainty in assessment. Curriculum Inquiry, 10, 265-292.

375

Heap, J. (1985). Discourse in the production of classroom knowledge: Reading lessons. Curriculum Inquiry, 15, 245-279.

Hedegaard, M. (1990). The zone of proximal development as basis for instruction. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 349-371). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Hibbing, A. N., & Rankin-Erickson, J. L. (2003). A picture is worth a thousand words: Using visual images to improve comprehension for middle school struggling readers. Reading Teacher, 56, 758-770.

Hill, M. (1998). Reaching struggling readers. In K. Beers & B. Samuels (Eds.), Into focus: Understanding and creating middle school readers (pp. 82- 104). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Hinchman, K. A., Alvermann, D. E., Boyd, F. B., Brozo, W. G., & Vacca, R. T. (2003). Supporting older students' in- and out-of-school literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47, 304-310.

Hoberman, M. A. (2001). You read to me, I’ll read to you. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Hodder, I. (2000). The interpretation of documents and material culture. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 703-716). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hogsten, J. F., & Peregoy, P. A. (1999). An investigation of reading attitudes and self- perceptions of students reading on and below grade level. Richmond: University of Virginia. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED448 432)

Holland, D. C., Lachiotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

376

International Reading Association. (2000). Teaching all children to read – the roles of the reading specialist: A position statement of the International Reading Association. Newark, DE: Author.

Ivey, G. (1999a). A multicase study in the middle school: Complexities among young adolescent readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 172-192.

Ivey, G. (1999b). Reflections on teaching struggling middle school readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42, 372-381.

Ivey, G. (2000). Redesigning reading instruction. Educational Leadership, 58(1), 42-45.

Ivey, G., & Broaddus, K. (2000). Tailoring the fit: Reading instruction and middle school readers. Reading Teacher, 54, 68-78.

Jacobson, J., Thrope, L., Fisher, D., Lapp, D., Frey, N., & Flood, J. (2001). Cross-age tutoring: A literacy improvement approach for struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44, 528-536.

Jimenez, R. T. (1997). The strategic reading abilities and potential of five low-literacy Latina/o readers in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 224-243.

John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31, 191-206.

Johnston, P. H. (1984). Prior knowledge and reading comprehension test bias. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 219-239.

Johnston, P. H. (1997). Knowing literacy: Constructive literacy assessment. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Johnston, P. H. (2003). Assessment conversations. Reading Teacher, 57, 90-92.

377

Johnston, P. H. (2004). Choice words: How our language affects children's learning. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Johnston, P. H., & Costello, P. (2005). Principles for literacy assessment. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 256-267.

Johnston, P. H., & Rogers, R. (2001). Early literacy development: The case for “informed assessment.” In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 377-389). New York: Guilford Press.

Johnston, P., Woodside-Jiron, H., & Day, J. (2000). Teaching and learning literate epistemologies. Retrieved December 1, 2005, from http://cela.albany.edu/reports/johnstonteachingepist13009.pdf

Juel, C. (1996). What makes literacy tutoring effective? Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 268-289.

Kinnucan-Welsch, K., Rosemary, C. A., & Grogan, P. R. (2006). Accountability by design in literacy professional development. Reading Teacher, 59, 426-435.

Knobel, M. (1999). Everyday literacies: Students, discourse, and social practice. New York: P. Lang.

Koliussi, L. (2004). Identity construction in discourse: Gender tensions among Greek Americans in Chicago. In M. Farr (Ed.), Ethnolinguistic Chicago. (pp. 103-135). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Inc.

Kos, R. (1991). Persistence of reading disabilities: The voices of four middle school students. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 875-895.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1992). Reading between the lines and beyond the pages: A culturally relevant approach to literacy teaching. Theory into Practice, 31, 312- 320.

378

Leander, K. M. (2001). "This is our freedom bus going home right now": Producing and hybridizing space-time contexts in pedagogical discourse. Journal of Literacy Research, 33, 637-679.

Leander. K. M., & Sheehy, M. (2004). Spatializing literacy research and practice. New York: P. Lang.

Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2005). Qualitative Reading Inventory-IV. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lum, K., & Hellard, S. (2005). Princesses are not quitters! New York: Bloomsbury USA Children’s Books.

Mallette, M. H., Henk, W. A., Waggoner, J. E., & DeLaney, C. J. (2005). What matters most? A survey of accomplished middle-level educators’ beliefs and values about literacy. Action in Teacher Education, 27(2), 33-42.

Manuel, J. (2003). Effective strategies to address the needs of adolescents 13+ experiencing difficulties with reading: A review of the literature. Retrieved July 20, 2005, from http://www.curriculumsupport.nsw.edu.au/literacy/index.cfm?u=2&i=7

McDermott, R. P. (1993). The acquisition of a child by a learning disability. In Understanding practice (p. 269-305). S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England.

McDermott, R., & Varenne, H. (1995). Culture as disability. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 26, 324-348.

McKenna, M. C., & Stahl, S. (2003). Assessment for reading instruction. New York: Guilford Press.

379

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitatative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Mochizuki, K., & Lee, D. (1995). Baseball saved us. New York: Lee & Low Books.

Montague, M., & Rinaldi, C. (2001). Classroom dynamics and children at risk: A follow up. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 75-83.

Moran, K., & Carson, J. E. (2003). Conversation sparks: How to jumpstart comprehension. Voices from the Middle, 11(1), 29-30.

Morris, P. (1994). The Bakhtin reader. London: Arnold.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Washington DC: National Institute of Child Health and Development.

Nielsen, L. (1998). Playing for real: Performative texts and adolescent identities. In D. E. Alvermann, K. A. Hinchman, D. W. Moore, S. F. Phelps, & D. R. Waff (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents' lives (pp. 3-26). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

O’Brien, D. G. (1998). Multiple literacies in a high-school program for “at-risk” adolescents. In D. E. Alvermann, K. A. Hinchman, D. W. Moore, S. F. Phelps, & D. R. Waff (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents' lives (pp. 27- 50). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24, 318-335.

O’Connor, R. E., Notari-Syverson, A., & Vadarsy, P. F. (1996). Ladders to literacy: The effects of teacher-led phonological activities for kindergarten children with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 117-130.

380

Palincsar, A. M. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345-420.

Paris, S. G., Lawton, T. A., & Turner, J. C. (1992). Reforming achievement testing to promote students’ learning. In C. Collins & J. N. Mangieri (Eds.), Teaching thinking: An agenda for the twenty-first century (pp. 185-220). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1994). Becoming a strategic reader. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.) Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 788-810). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Pellegrino, J. W. (n.d.). The challenge of knowing what students know. Retrieved January 7, 2005, from http://bearcenter.berkeley.edu/measurement/docs/Pellegrion_1_1.pdf

Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Pflaum, S. W., Pascarella, E. T., Boswick, M., & Auer, C. (1980). The influence of pupil behaviors and pupil status on teacher behaviors during oral reading lessons. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 99-105.

Polacco, P. (1994) Pink and Say. New York: Philomel.

Primeaux, J. (2000). Shifting perspectives on struggling readers. Language Arts, 77, 537-542.

Rasinski, T. (2003). The fluent reader: Oral reading strategies for building word recognition, fluency, and comprehension. New York: Scholastic Professional Books.

381

Raskin, E. (1997). The Westing game. New York: Puffin.

Reardon, S. J. (1990). Putting reading tests in their place. The New Advocate, 3(1), 29- 37.

Reay, D., & Wiliam, D. (1999). 'I'll be a nothing': Structure, agency and the construction of identity through assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 343-354.

Richards, T., & Richards, L. (2002). N6 (Non-numerical Unstructured Data Indexing Searching & Theorizing) qualitative data analysis program (Version 6) [Computer software]. QSR International Pty Ltd.

Rodgers, E. (2005). Interactions that scaffold reading performance. Journal of Literacy Research, 36, 501-532.

Roe, M. F. (1997). Combining enablement and engagement to assist students who do not read and write well. Middle School Journal, 28(3), 35-41.

Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and spprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of the mind (pp. 139-164). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Roller, C. M. (1996). Variability not disability: Struggling readers in a workshop classroom. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Rosemary, C.A., Freppon, P., Kinnucan-Welsch, K., Grogan, P., Feist-Willis, J., Zimmerman, B., et al. (2002). Improving literacy teaching through structured collaborative inquiry in classroom and university clinical settings. In D. Schaller, C. Fairbanks, J. Worthy, B. Maloch, & J. Hoffman (Eds.), 51st yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 368-382). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.

Ryan, P. M., & Selznick, B. (2002). When Marian sang. New York: Scholastic Press.

382

Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.

Sarup, M. (1993). Post-structuralism and postmodernism. Athens: The University of Georgia Press.

Saunders, K. (2004). Happy ever afters: A storybook guide to teaching children about disability. Wiltshire, Great Britain: Trentham Books.

Say, A. (1991). Tree of cranes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 189-214). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Scrismer, S., & Tudge, J. (2003). The teaching/learning relationship in the first years of school: Some revolutionary implications of Vygotsky’s theory. Early Education & Development, 14, 293-312.

Shanahan, T. (1998). On the effectiveness and limitations of tutoring in reading. Review of Research in Education, 23, 217-234.

Shanahan, T., & Barr, R. (1995). Reading Recovery: An independent evaluation of the effects of early instructional interventions for at-risk learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 958-995.

Smith, D. (1987). Illiteracy as a social fault. In D. Bloome (Ed.), Literacy and schooling (pp. 55-64). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Smith, P. (2001). Cultural theory. New York: Blackwell.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

383

Snow, C. E., Griffin, P, & Burns, M. S. (2005). Knowledge to support the teaching of reading. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407.

Street, B. (Ed.). (1993). Cross-cultural approaches to literacy. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sutherland, L. M. (2005). Black adolescent girls’ use of literacy practices to negotiate boundaries of ascribed identity. Journal of Literacy Research, 37, 365-406.

Sutherland, K. S., & Morgan, P. L. (2003). Implications of transactional processes in classrooms for students with emotional/behavioral disorders. Preventing School Failure, 48(1), 32-37.

Tancock, S. M. (1994). A literacy lesson framework for children with reading problems. Reading Teacher, 48, 130-140.

Taylor, D. (1988, Winter). Ethnographic educational evaluation for children, families, and schools. Theory into Practice, 27, 67-76.

Taylor, S. V. (2000). Making literacy real for ‘high-risk’ adolescent emerging readers: An innovative application of readers’ workshop. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44, 1081-3004.

384

Thomas, K., & Maybin, J. (1998). Investigating language practices in a multilingual London community. In A. Egan-Robertson & D. Bloome (Eds.), Students as researchers of culture and language in their own communities (pp. 143-166). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Thrope, L., & Wood, K. (2000). Cross-age tutoring for young adolescents. The Clearing House 73, 239-242.

Tomlinson, C. A., Moon, T. R., & Callahan, C. M. (1998). How well are we addressing academic diversity in the middle school? Middle School Journal, 29 (3), 3-11.

Trent, S. C., Artiles, A. J., & Englert, C. S. (1998). From deficit thinking to social constructivism: A review of theory, research, and practice in special education. Review of Research in Education, 23, 277-307.

Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391-409.

Vygotsky, L. V. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Originally written or published between 1930 and 1935).

Wasik, B. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-to-one tutoring: A review of five programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 178- 200.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Beyond Vygotsky: Bakhtin’s contribution. In J. V. Werstch, Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action (pp. 46-66). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wilhelm, J. D. (2001). Improving comprehension with think-aloud strategies. New York: Scholastic Professional Books.

385

Wiliam, D. (2000). The meanings and consequences of educational assessments. Critical Quarterly, 42(1), 105-128.

Williams, M. (2001). Making connections: A workshop for adolescents who struggle with reading. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44, 588-602.

Wixson, K K., & Pearson, P. D. (1998). Policy and assessment strategies to support literacy instruction for a new century. Peabody Journal of Education, 73, 202-227.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.

Woode, J. (2003). Help! I have struggling readers. Ohio Middle School Journal, 27(1), 17-19.

Wortham, S. (2006). Learning identity: The joint emergence of social identification and academic learning. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

386