In the Figured Worlds of Culture and Religion: Prospective Teachers’ Discourse Around Latino Literature for Children

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Denise Lynne Davila

Graduate Program in Education

The Ohio State University

2012

Dissertation Committee: Barbara Kiefer, Adviser Barbara Lehman Patricia Enciso Caroline Clark

Copyrighted by Denise L. Davila 2012 Abstract

This dissertation examines what happens when prospective teachers (PTs) engage with works of Latino children’s literature that contain visual religious content. Exposing

PTs to accurate and affirming works of Latino children’s literature could foster their cultural awareness (Medina & Enciso, 2001) and support their future work in diverse school communities. Conversely, teachers’ avoidance of multicultural texts is well documented (Nieto, 2002; Taxel, 1994). Gándara (2008) argues that unprepared teachers are one of the primary reasons that there is a crisis in the education of Latino students.

This dissertation focuses on an analysis of the social Discourses and figured worlds (Gee, 2011) that PTs construe in response to acclaimed Latino picturebooks such as In My Family (Garza, 1996), Friends from the Other Side (Anzaldúa, 1993), and

Abuelito Eats with His Fingers (Levy, 1999), each of which is a work of critical fiction

(Mariani, 1991).

The teacher-researcher collected data from 83 predominantly white, young, female prospective teachers enrolled in a major Midwest university’s introductory survey course of children’s literature that is a prerequisite to the university’s post-baccalaureate licensure program. Data sources included participants’ written responses to the literature and related pedagogy, fieldnotes, and audio recordings of small group and whole class discussions. Using Gee’s (2011) concept of figured worlds as a tool of inquiry for content analysis, this study revealed that some of these PTs impose strict cultural boundaries ii around “American” identity. These boundaries exclude and displace children of Mexican heritage. The data set points to deficiencies in multicultural education as experienced by some PTs in the last decade. It shows contradictions between many PTs’ desires to foster cultural awareness and their ideologies and political outlooks related to myths about

Latinos, immigration, and religion in public education.

iii

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my dissertation committee members Barbara Kiefer, Barbara

Lehman, Patricia Enciso, and Caroline Clark for their tremendous guidance and support during my studies at the Ohio State University. I am honored that you are my mentors and eternally grateful for you kind and thoughtful responses to my work.

Vita

1991 ...... B.A. Liberal Studies: Early Childhood

Option, California State University East Bay

1991 to 1994 ...... Classroom Teacher, Saint Elizabeth

Elementary School, Oakland CA

1993 ...... Multiple Subject Teaching Credential, Holy

Names University

1994 ...... Cross-cultural Language and Academic

Development (CLAD) Certification,

Alameda County Office of Education, CA

1994 to 1995 ...... Classroom Teacher, International School of

Trieste, Italy

1995 to 1998 ...... Math & Science Instructor/Curriculum

Developer, Lawrence Hall of Science at the

University of California, Berkeley

2001 ...... M.S. Education, Curriculum and Instruction:

Children’s Literature, California State

University East Bay v

2001 to 2009 ...... Lecturer, Teacher Education Department,

California State University East Bay

2003 ...... M.F.A. Creative Writing for Children, The

Union Institute & University at Vermont

College

2004 to 2008 ...... University Field Supervisor, Teacher

Education Department, California State

University East Bay

2007 to 2008 ...... Admissions Adviser and Field Placement

Coordinator, Teacher Education

Department, California State University East

Bay

2008 to 2010 ...... University Field Supervisor, School of

Teaching and Learning, The Ohio State

University

2009 to present ...... Graduate Teaching Associate, School of

Teaching and Learning, The Ohio State

University, Columbus and Mansfield

2010 to 2011 ...... Editorial Assistant, Language Arts Journal,

The Ohio State University

2012 ...... Ph.D. Education: Literature for Children and

Young Adults School of Teaching and

Learning, The Ohio State University

Publications

Books

Kopp, J, & Davila, D. (2000). Math on the Menu. Berkeley, CA: UC Berkeley Press

Peer Reviewed Publications

Davila, D. (2012). In search of the ideal reader for children’s non-fiction books about el

Día de Los Muertos. Journal of Children’s Literature, 38(1), 16-26.

Davila, D. (2011). White people don’t work at McDonald’s and other shadow stories

from the field: Analyzing preservice teachers’ use of Obama’s race speech to teach

for social justice. English Education, 44(1), 13 – 50.

Davila, D. (2010). Not so innocent: Book trailers as anticipatory stories. The ALAN

Review. Fall, 32 – 42.

Editor Reviewed Publications

Davila, D., Anggraini, T., Barger, B. P., Bowcutt, A., Brewster, H., Vocal, P. (2011).

Tales of achievement. Language Arts, 88(5), 391-395.

Davila, D. (2010). Profile: Cornelia Funke. In B. Lehman, E. Freeman, & P. Scharer

(Eds.), Reading globally, K-8: Connecting students to the world through literature.

Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Corwin Press.

Davila, D. & Patrick, L. (2010). Asking the experts: What children have to say about

their reading preferences. Language Arts, 87(2), 199 – 210.

vii

Patrick, L. & Davila, D. (2010). What did you think of the book?: Kids speak up.

Language Arts, 87(2), 225 - 231.

Fields of Study

Major Field: Education

viii

Table of Contents

Abstract...... ii

Acknowledgments ...... iv

Vita ...... v

List of Tables ...... xvi

List of Figures...... xx

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION...... 1

Framing the Situation...... 3

Problem Statement ...... 7

Purpose of Study ...... 9

Research Questions...... 11

Significance of Study...... 13

Definition of Terms...... 15

Definition...... 16

Categories and Types of Multicultural Children’s Literature ...... 17

Chapter Overviews...... 19

CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS ...... 21

Conflicting Discourses...... 21

Discourse with a Capital “D” ...... 21

Underpinnings of the Discourse of La Virgen de Guadalupe ...... 23

Devotions to La Virgen de Guadalupe...... 24

Connection to Dominant Discourse: Latino Threat Narrative ...... 28

Conversations and Historical Development of Discourse: Who is “American?”.....29

Connection to Figured Worlds: Outsiders...... 32

Theoretical Framework: Discourse and Teacher Beliefs...... 34

Conceptual Framework ...... 34

Factors that Shape Teachers’ Beliefs and Knowledge ...... 37

Summary ...... 41

Censorship and Subject Positioning...... 42

Teacher Identity and Censorship...... 43

Teacher Stance and Subject Positioning ...... 45

Teacher Stances that Function as Censorship ...... 49

Summary ...... 67

Critical Literacy and Teachers ...... 69

Rationale for Critical Literacy...... 69

Conceptual Framework ...... 71

Methodology ...... 73

Discussion A: Cultivating Critical Readers who are Teachers ...... 75

Discussion B: Nurturing Culturally Responsive Teachers...... 86

Conclusion...... 92

Religion, Multiculturalism, and Children’s ...... 93

Literature in the Public School...... 93

The Diversity and Religion Awareness Conversations...... 94

Conceptual Framework ...... 97

Methodology ...... 98

Discussion A: Benefits and Obstacles to Fostering Religious Literacy...... 99

Discussion B: Religion in the Research on Multicultural Children’s Literature .....106

Discussion C: Emerging Themes from the Literature...... 111

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY...... 118

Data Collection ...... 119

Limitations ...... 120

Pilot Survey...... 124

Main Study...... 127

Research Pedagogy...... 130

Main Study Procedures ...... 133

Selection of Latino Children’s Literature ...... 136

Data Analysis ...... 140

Figured worlds, Discourses, and Conversations ...... 140

Quantitative Content Analysis...... 141

Thematic Network Analysis...... 142

Code Validity ...... 143

Common Codes for Separate Analyses...... 144

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ...... 146

Research Question One...... 147

Prospective Teachers’ Background Knowledge...... 147

Research Question Two ...... 150

In My Family...... 150

Friends from the Other Side ...... 152

Abuelito Eats with His Fingers ...... 156

Comparison Across Books ...... 160

xii

Research Question Three ...... 162

In My Family...... 164

Friends from the Other Side ...... 170

Abuelito Eats with His Fingers ...... 178

Cross Analysis...... 183

Research Question Four...... 187

Alternative Worldviews/Spiritual Ideas ...... 188

In My Family...... 189

Friends from the Other Side ...... 192

Abuelito Eats with His Fingers ...... 196

Cross Analysis...... 200

Research Question Five ...... 216

Choice of Books ...... 216

Reflection on Critical Reading...... 217

Connections to Stories...... 220

Research Question Six ...... 222

Family Composition...... 224

Ordinariness...... 225

Cultural Profile...... 228

xiii

Milieu ...... 232

Summary ...... 235

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ...... 237

Recapitulation of the Research...... 237

Conclusions ...... 241

Implications and Future Research ...... 248

Future Research...... 252

References...... 254

Appendix A: “The Miracle” ...... 283

Appendix B: Herb Woman’s Bedroom ...... 285

Appendix C: Abuelito’s Statues and Candles...... 287

Appendix D: Literature Response Questions ...... 289

Appendix E: Week 8 Discussion Prompts...... 290

Appendix F: Week 8 Critical Reading Instructional Framework...... 291

Appendix G: Week 8 Background Information...... 292

Appendix H: Pilot Survey...... 296

Appendix I: Week 1 Survey (Main Study)...... 305

Appendix J: Week 8 Survey (Main Study)...... 308

Appendix K: Post-Reading Survey...... 313

xiv

Appendix L: Meta-Knowledge and Content Knowledge Figure...... 314

Appendix M: Grade Level Analysis for Research Question Three...... 315

Appendix N: Code List...... 320

List of Tables

Table 1. Text Set of Latino Children’s Literature...... 10

Table 2: Literature Review Studies...... 50

Table 3. Sources for Literature Review...... 75

Table 4. Definitions of Ideal Reader, Peritexts, and Implied Author...... 80

Table 5. Sources for Literature Review...... 99

Table 6. Guidelines for Teaching About Religion...... 104

Table 7. General Questions for Critical Reading...... 115

Table 8. Critique Questions for Religious Themes...... 115

Table 9. Respondents’Race and Gender...... 128

Table 10. Participants’ Preferred Career Objectives...... 129

Table 11. Rationale for Selecting Data Sources...... 135

Table 12. Respondents’ General Response to the Book In My Family...... 152

Table 13. Respondents’ General Response to the Book Friends from the Other Side....154

Table 14. Respondents’ General Response to the Book Abuelito Eats With His Fingers.

...... 157

Table 15. Most Popular Themes...... 161

Table 16. Respondents Arguments for Using the Book In My Family in Their Future

Classroom...... 166

xvi

Table 17. Respondents Arguments against Using the Book In My Family in Their Future

Classroom...... 166

Table 18. Respondents’ Conditions for Using In My Family in Their Future Classroom.

...... 169

Table 19. Arguments for Using the Book Friends from the Other Side in the Future

Classroom...... 172

Table 20. Arguments against Using Friends From the Other Side in the Future

Classroom...... 173

Table 21. Rationale of Undecided Respondents...... 175

Table 22. Respondents’ Conditions for Discussing Friends from the Other Side in Their

Future Classroom...... 177

Table 23. Respondents’ Arguments for Using Abuelito Eats with His Fingers in Their

Future Classroom...... 180

Table 24. Respondents’ Arguments against Using Abuelito Eats with His Fingers in Their

Future Classroom...... 181

Table 25. Respondents’ Conditions for Using Abuelito Eats with His Fingers in Their

Future Classroom...... 183

Table 26. Most Popular Arguments for Using the Books in Respondents’ Future

Classroom...... 184

Table 27. Most Popular Arguments against Using the Books in the Future Classroom. 185

Table 28. Most Popular Conditions for Using the Books in the Future Classroom...... 186

xvii

Table 29. Arguments for Discussing Religious Significance of “The Miracle” from In My

Family...... 190

Table 30. Arguments against Discussing Religious Significance of “The Miracle” from In

My Family...... 191

Table 31. Conditions for Discussing Religious Significance of “The Miracle” from In My

Family...... 192

Table 32. Arguments for Discussing Religious Significance of Paintings/Artifacts in the

Herb Woman’s Bedroom from Friends from the Other Side...... 194

Table 33. Arguments against Discussing Religious Significance of Paintings/Artifacts in the Herb Woman’s Bedroom from Friends from the Other Side...... 195

Table 34. Conditions for Discussing Religious Significance of Paintings/Artifacts in the

Herb Woman’s Bedroom from Friends from the Other Side...... 196

Table 35: Arguments for Discussing Religious Significance of Candles and Statues in

Abuelito’s House...... 198

Table 36. Arguments against Discussing Religious Significance of Candles and Statues in

Abuelito’s House...... 199

Table 37. Conditions for Discussing Religious Significance of Candles and Statues in

Abuelito’s House...... 200

Table 38: Most Popular Arguments for Discussing Religious Significance...... 205

Table 39. Most Popular Arguments Against Discussing Religious Significance...... 207

Table 40. Most Popular Conditions for Discussing Religious Significance...... 214

Table 41. Respondents Reflection after Critical Reading of Books...... 218

xviii

TABLE 42: Most popular arguments for using the books in the future classroom (by respondents’ preferred teaching grade level)...... 318

xix

List of Figures

Figure 1. Pilot Study Respondents’ Race and Gender. Numbers Indicate How Many

Respondents (out of 141) Belong to Each Category...... 125

Figure 2. Pilot Survey Respondents’ Age...... 125

Figure 3. Participants’ Age...... 128

Figure 4. Respondents’ Preferred Career Grade Level...... 129

Figure 5. Respondents’ Background Knowledge of Mexican and Mexican American

Cultures. Numbers Indicate How Many of the 68 Respondents Selected Each Answer.148

Figure 6. Pilot Survey Respondents’ Recognition of Guadalupe...... 149

Figure 7. Respondents’ Personal Connection to Books...... 161

Figure 8. Respondents’ Willingness to Use Book In My Family in Their Future

Classroom...... 164

Figure 9. Respondents’ Willingness to Use Friends from the Other Side in Their Future

Classroom...... 171

Figure 10. Respondents’ Willingness to Use Abuelito Eats with His Fingers in Their

Future Classroom...... 179

Figure 11. Likelihood of Selecting a Book Featuring Worldviews and Spiritual Ideas

Different from the Mainstream American...... 188

Figure 12. Likelihood of Discussing Religious Significance of the Water Tank Painting

“The Miracle” from In My Family...... 189

Figure 13. Respondents’ Comfort Level of Discussing Paintings and Artifacts in the Herb

Woman’s Bedroom from Friends from the Other Side...... 193

Figure 14. Likelihood of Discussing Religious Significance of Candles and Statues from

Abuelito Eats with His Fingers...... 197

Figure 15: Likelihood of Discussing Alternative Worldviews/Spiritual Ideas in

Comaprison with Religious Significance of the Books...... 201

Figure 16. Respondents’ Choice of Books for Post-Reading Analysis...... 217

Figure 17. Respondents’ Connections to Stories...... 221

Figure 18. Prospective Teachers’ Figured World: “Typical” Persons of Mexican Heritage.

...... 223

FIGURE 19: Respondents’ willingness to use “In My Family” in their future classroom

(per preferred teaching grade level)...... 316

FIGURE 20: Respondents’ willingness to use “Friends from the Other Side” in their future classroom (per preferred teaching grade level)...... 316

FIGURE 21: Respondents’ willingness to use “Abuelito Eats with His Fingers” in their future classroom (per preferred teaching grade level)...... 317

xxi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Childhood experiences and memories can have a profound influence on one’s sense of identity and agency. While my childhood memories include birthday parties and bike rides, I had a decidedly unique set of cultural experiences that have shaped my life.

It is from this place that I am pursuing my intellectual curiosity. My research agenda stems from my experience growing up with repertoires of cultural, economic and linguistic practices (Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003) that were not understood or visible in representations of mainstream American families. Born to a working-class Salvadoran father and European mother, I am first in my family to attend college. Although my grandparents publically identified as Catholic, my grandmother’s position as a doña in the Santería religion and my family’s practice of Latin American espiritismo influenced my worldview as a young person. Discussions of my family’s religious identity, however, had no place in polite conversation outside of our home, especially at school. I felt isolated not knowing whether other children felt the conflict between their families’ cultural belief systems and dominant religious ideologies. I did not see families like mine in any school curriculum, let alone children’s literature. I never met a teacher who would understand my experience.

When I became a primary grade teacher at a Catholic school in a predominantly

Latino community of California, I appreciated the opportunity to recognize cultural and 1 religious worldviews with my students. This experience reinforced for me the importance of being a religiously aware teacher who enacts culturally relevant pedagogy

(Ladson-Billings, 1995). As a result, I am particularly interested in the choices teachers make in selecting and/or censoring Latino children’s literature for the classroom. In a multicultural children’s literature course that I instructed for public school teachers, I met practicing English teachers who argued that they would never use the award-winning children’s novel Esperanza Rising (Munoz-Ryan, 2002) because the young immigrant- protagonist Esperanza prays to the Virgin of Guadalupe, the patroness of Esperanza’s

Mexican homeland. My experience was supported in the research of Escamilla and

Nathenson-Meja (2003), who found that some of the preservice teachers enrolled in their children’s literature courses also rejected children’s multicultural, Latino books on religious grounds. These preservice teachers felt that picturebooks like Pancho’s Piñata

(Czernecki & Rhodes, 1992) and Maria Molina and the Day of the Dead (Krull, 1994) had religious overtones and contended that such content does not have any place in public education.

Consequently, this dissertation research on prospective teachers’ social discourse around Latino children’s literature that includes religious content is both poignant and urgent for me as I undertake a career that includes children literature and teacher education. This study examines what happens when prospective teachers, many of whom will become licensed practicing teachers within 12 – 24 months, engage with Latino and multicultural children’s literature that includes religious content.

Framing the Situation

Just as I never saw myself reflected in the children’s literature and classroom materials of my K -12 learning experience, neither do many children of Latino heritage or of religious traditions that are outside of the dominant culture. Nord (2010) a scholar who examines the intersection of religion, multiculturalism, and public education argues that the nonappearance of people of a certain race, ethnicity, religious tradition, or gender in the school materials leads to a sense of disenfranchisement of these people. Such disenfranchisement of people’s literary legacy and lives is most evident today in the elimination of Latinos from the curriculum, which received national attention in 2011 and

2012 as the Tucson Unified School District in Arizona terminated its K – 12 Mexican

American studies program and literally removed from classrooms books that address the perspectives of Latinos and other subordinate groups in society and culture.

The exclusion of materials that explore topics such as Latino cultures, religious beliefs, social practices, history, and art essentially erases Latinos from school culture.

Alma Flor Ada (2003) observes that Latino children “have suffered a great deal from the ways in which their culture… has been rendered invisible… within the school curriculum. …[They] seldom have an opportunity to see… representations of their culture” (p. xiv). Ada argues that such censorship fosters low self-esteem among Latino children. Being rendered invisible in school also supports the “widespread disaffection with schooling” experienced by many Latino youth (Ream & Vazquez, 2010, p. 4). This disaffection with schooling combined with the cultural and cognitive dissonance that

3 some Latino children face is associated with the fact that many Latino children do not finish high school (Batalova & Fix, 2011).

Not only is the exclusion or nonappearance of Latinos and religious minorities in the curriculum harmful to the members of these groups, it is also harmful to American society. After all, citizenship in a diverse society “means living with our deepest differences and committing ourselves to… the best interest of all individuals, families, communities and our nation. The framers of our Constitution referred to this concept of moral responsibility as civic virtue” (Hayne and Thomas, 2007, p. 11). In order to foster civic virtue, it is critical that students are exposed to curriculum materials and children’s literature that, using Rudine Sims Bishop’s (1994) metaphor, not only serve “as a mirror reflecting themselves and their cultural values, attitudes and behaviors,” but also serve

“as a window onto lives and experiences different from their own” (p. xiv). Otherwise, if children are exposed only to reflections of themselves, “they will grow up with an exaggerated view of their importance and value in the world – a dangerous ethnocentrism” (Bishop, 1990b, p. x). They might also presume that books are primarily written for them and no others.

Sadly, the ethnocentrism that has resulted from excluding Latinos from the curriculum may be reflected in the ways some teachers regard Latino cultures and some non-Latino children interact with Latino children (Eggers-Piérola, 2005). Studies also show a correlation between the way some members of society regard Latinos as having low social capital and the way Latino children think about themselves, their heritage, and

4 ethnic identity (Naidoo, 2010). At the same time, Patricia Gándara (2008) of the Civil

Rights Project at UCLA argues that there is a crisis in the education of Latino students:

[The] low educational attainment of Latino students is … clearly the result of a

complex web of social, economic, and educational conditions—inadequate social

services, families with exceptionally low human and social capital, a polarizing

economy … and schools that lack the resources to meet many students' most basic

educational needs… While language is an issue for some Latino students, it's not

the critical issue… Chief among the educational inequities suffered are teachers

unprepared to address their [Latino students’] needs. (p.1)

Gándara’s accounting of the low human and social capital and the complex web of factors that attribute to the low educational attainment of Latino students could be symptomatic of the ways in which U.S.-born and immigrants of Latino heritage are positioned in the dominant Discourse (Gee, 2008) as “them,” “foreigners,” “non-

Americans,” and “invaders” (Chavez, 2008; Chomsky, 2007; Santa Ana, 2002). These and more dehumanizing labels that denote low human and social capital have been employed by elected officials as much as they have been spewed across public radio airways (National Hispanic Media Coalition, 2012).

Gándara’s assessment that Latino children’s educations and well-being suffer when teachers are underprepared is consistent with the results of the Pew Hispanic

Center/Kaiser Family Foundation National Education Survey of Latinos (2004). Many

Latinos who participated in the study are concerned that teachers are not equipped to address the cultural differences in their classroom and, thereby, diminish the progress of

Latino children. For example, 51% believe that schools are apt to label Latino children as having learning or behavioral problems; 47% suggest that white teachers are neither culturally competent nor responsive to Latino students; and 43% argue that racial stereotypes cause teachers and administrators to have lower expectations for Latino students (Pew, 2004, p. 8). Regionally, the crisis is the same. Case studies of southern schools (Arkansas, North Carolina, & Georgia) described in a Tomás Rivera Policy

Institute report (Wainer, 2004) show that limited cultural awareness of educators and school community members is linked to discrimination toward Latino children.

The limited cultural awareness of some educators is also likely to be indicative of limited religious awareness. This is especially the case for many cultural practices among people of Mexican and Latin American heritage. Religion and identity and political power have long been interlinked in the histories of Mexico and Latin America.

For example, historically religious indoctrination served as a powerful colonizing tool following the Spanish conquest of the New World. In the words of Susan Rinderle

(2005):

As a result of invasion and colonization, not only are Mexicans and Mexican

Americans racial and ethnic hybrids, so is their culture. One need only look to

Mexican religious syncretism for examples. One of the most powerful symbols for

the Mexican diaspora today is La Virgen de Guadalupe… The discourse of the

indigenous Virgen as the “Mother of the Americas” and “Patron Saint of Mexico”

…today continues to combine and reinforce ideologies of the Spanish Catholic

colonizer and the indigenous Náhuatl-speaking colonized. (p. 297)

As Rinderle (2005) implies, for many people of Mexican and Mexican American heritage the discourse of culture and identity is inseparable from the discourse of religious colonization, hybridism, and La Virgen de Guadalupe. I argue that in order for teachers to cultivate a moral responsibility toward civic virtue as intended by the U.S.

Constitution, they need the kind of cultural and religious awareness that supports the inclusion of Latinos and members of other minority groups in the curriculum.

Problem Statement

Teacher censorship of Latino and other genres of multicultural children’s literature, as described earlier, is a common occurrence. Sonia Nieto, renowned advocate of multicultural education and multicultural children’s literature, as cited in an interview with Aaronsohn (2000), observes that censorship of texts occurs every single day in schools. “We call it ‘selections,’ we call it ‘choice,’” Nieto says. “Teachers make up their minds… about what to use with students based on their own thinking, based on their political ideology, on their orientation to what education is all about” (p. 3). Similarly,

Luke and Freebody (1997) argue that teachers privilege, delete, abbreviate, and/or modify text for their lessons, as well as for students’ silent reading, individual projects, and other literacy activities as a means of fostering certain social practices and cultural models or figured worlds (Gee, 1996/2011). As a result, teachers ultimately authorize specific types of reading and response as being “appropriate” and thereby conforming to dominant ideological discourses (Apol, 1998; Freebody, Luke, & Gilbert, 1991; Hoffman, 1996).

Such reading and response could be complicit with the privileging of mainstream culture and the oppression of minority cultural, social, and economic groups (Gee, 2008).

Hence, some teachers’ rejection of certain Latino children’s literature is problematic for four major reasons. First, religious spirituality is inexorably entwined with the histories of conflict and domination that depended on religious colonization of

Mexico and Latin America. Any examination of Latin American culture and history is incomplete without a discussion of religious influence (Badillo, 2006; Poole, 1997).

Second, the multicultural education agenda in the United States calls on educators to affirm “the pluralism (ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, economic, and gender, among others) that students, their communities, and teachers reflect” (Nieto & Bode, 2008, p.

44). At a time when Latinos represent the largest minority population (US Census

Bureau, 2010), teachers’ ban on certain Latino children’s literatures undermines the objectives of affirming a pluralistic society.

Third, given that the majority of teachers are white females (US Department of

Education, 2008) from rural or suburban middle class backgrounds (Zeichner et al.,

1998), some teachers’ rejection of Latino children’s literature suggests that these teachers might not possess the necessary background knowledge to appreciate or understand the differences between mainstream American culture and dominant Latino and/or Mexican

American culture.

Finally, the way some teachers base their rejection of certain Latino children’s literature on the presence of religious content (Escamilla and Nathenson-Meja, 2003) implies that these teachers might not understand that it is both lawful and important to discuss religious worldviews in public schools. Alternately, their school communities might not recognize that religious awareness supports students in becoming global

8 citizens who embrace a democratic culture of toleration, respect, and understanding of diversity in our nation and world (Fraser, 1999; Green & Oldendorf, 2005; Hayne, 1992;

Moore, 2007; Rosenblith & Baily, 2007).

In short, teachers’ avoidance of Latino children’s literature could reinforce Latino literature as being “other.” It could also be complicit with maintaining the status quo and subsequently the inequities suffered by Latino students due to lack of teacher awareness and preparedness. In the absence of critical consciousness, such complacency in education inhibits meaningful social action for change (Friere, 1970; Giroux, 1987).

Purpose of Study

One suggestion for addressing the aforementioned Latino educational crisis comes from former National Education Association (NEA) President Reg Weaver, who argues that, “Exposing Latino children to books that reflect their culture as well as their language is one of the most effective ways of motivating them to stay in school” (NEA,

2002, para. 2). Including in the curriculum accurate and affirmative works of Latino children’s literature by culturally knowledgeable, sensitive, and responsible authors could help foster positive self-image among Latino children as well as shift the perspective of non-Latino educators and students (Ada, 2002, 2003; Barrera, Liguori, & Salas, 1992;

Medina & Enciso, 2002; Naidoo, 2010; Nieto, 1993). Specifically, exposure to Latino children’s books has the potential for building students’ and teachers’ cultural awareness of the pluralistic world in which their school communities reside (Furumoto, 2008;

Medina & Enciso 2002; Nathenson-Mejía & Escamilla, 2003; Smolen & Ortiz-Castro

2000). Engaging in praxis (Friere, 1970) and preparing future teachers to be culturally

9 competent/responsive educators within their communities of students (Ladson-Billings,

1995; Villegas & Lucas, 2002; Wainer, 2004) could also address this education crisis.

Thus, the purpose of this study is to:

a) expose prospective teachers enrolled in an introductory children’s literature

course (study participants) to a thematic unit or text set (Cai, 2002) of Latino

children’s literature that includes religious content and that reflects the Mexican

and Mexican American discourse of La Virgen de Guadalupe;

b) guide research participants through a critical literacy pedagogy (McLaughlin and

DeVoogd, 2004) that supports their development of cultural and religious

awareness;

c) engage participants in reflecting on their biases, knowledge, and critical reading

experience; and to

d) describe and critically analyze the discourses that the prospective teachers enact

in response to the cultural/religious content of the texts.

See Table 1, below for a list of books used in this study.

Table 1. Text Set of Latino Children’s Literature.

Children’s Literature Anzaldua, G. (1993). Friends from the other side. San Francisco: Children’s Book Press Córdova, A. (2011). Talking Eagle and the Lady of Roses. Great Barington, MA: Steiner de Paola, T. (1980). The Lady of Guadalupe. New York: Holiday House Garza, C.L. (1996). In my family. San Francisco: Children’s Book Press Levy, J. (1999). Abuelito eats with his fingers. Austin: Eakin Press Adult Literature Castillo, A. (1996). Goddess of the Americas. New York: Riverhead Books Poole, S. (1995). Our Lady of Guadalupe. Tucson: University of Arizona Press

Research Questions

The questions for this teacher-research study were addressed in the context of three sections of an upper division undergraduate university course, Introduction to

Children’s Literature, for which I was the instructor. The 80+ juniors and seniors in this course were prospective elementary and middle school teachers. Most were white women in their early 20s.

Two research questions establish a baseline of information about the prospective teachers’ background and general responses to the works of children’s literature in this study: a) How do prospective teachers describe their knowledge of and relationships to the cultures depicted in select works of Latino children’s literature that includes religious content (In My Family; Friends from the Other Side; Abuelito Eats with His Fingers)? and b) What are prospective teachers’ general responses to works of Latino children’s literature that include religious content?

The guiding question for this study is: What kinds of Discourses and figured worlds (Gee, 2011) do prospective teachers construe about Latinos around works of

Latino children’s literature that includes visual religious content?

This guiding question addresses the following conceptual issues:

Previous research has shown that teachers, like students, assume certain subject positions toward texts (Beach, 1993, 1997) and sometimes reject the text based on their personal orientation (Escamilla & Nathenson-Meja, 2003; Schmidt, Armstrong, &

Everett, 2007; Wollman-Bollina, 1998). Consequently, the first sub-question of this

11 study is: What kinds of stances/subject-positions (Beach, 1997) do prospective teachers adopt in considering the use of each book in their future classrooms?

Research shows that the use of scholarly texts about critical literacy have supported prospective and preservice teachers in their thoughtful consideration of multicultural children’s literature (Graff, 2010; Mathis, 2001). The use of texts that provide historical and cultural background information about the multicultural children’s literature has also supported teachers’ critical reading process (Apol, Sakuma, Reyonlds,

& Rop, 2003). The second sub-question is: How does applying a critical lens to a re- reading of a book of one’s choice (In My Family; Friends from the Other Side; or

Abuelito Eats with His Fingers) influence the prospective teachers’ interpretations of that book?

Finally, while scholars advocate for fostering religious awareness among students

(Fraser, 1999; Moore, 2007; Noddings, 1993), there is little or no data on prospective teachers’ notions of this process. Therefore, the last sub-question is: What is the likelihood that prospective teachers would discuss with their future students the religious content of the books in this study?

As an outcome of this study, I hope to support prospective teachers in considering how religious literacy can help students become global citizens who embrace a democratic culture of toleration, respect, and appreciation of diversity in our nation and world (Fraser, 1999; Green & Oldendorf, 2005; Haynes, 1992; Moore, 2007; Rosenblith

& Baily, 2007).

Significance of Study

This study is significant because to date, there has been little research on prospective, preservice, and/or practicing teachers’ engagement with multicultural children’s literature that includes religion as a cultural phenomenon. The small body of existing educational research has been primarily grounded in textual analysis of religious representations in specific children’s fiction and nonfiction books (Lehman, 2005;

Sanders, Foyil, & Graff, 2010; and Trousdale, 2005). One report discusses the way a

Texas school district incorporated “teaching about religion” into the multicultural curriculum (Ayers & Reid, 2005). “Teaching about religion” is a term coined by the First

Amendment Center to explicitly reinforce that such practice is lawful and is not a form of proselytizing (Hayne & Thomas, 2007). The Texas school district report, however, does not attend to the teachers’ or students’ engagement with select children’s books as part of the approach.

As evidenced by the limited number of articles and materials listed in the EBSCO database, teaching-about-religion in the public school is somewhat absent from the multicultural education research agenda. Bishop and Nash (2007) argue that although multicultural education advocates that schools respect individual differences and honor the unique qualities of different cultures, consideration of religious difference “remains largely unexamined in the ongoing work toward equity, perhaps because of a general reluctance to address religious issues in a public school setting” (p. 21). Fraser (1999) adds, “If religion can be added to the multicultural agenda, then there is hope of

13 transcending some of the nation’s longest-running and most bitter school wars” (p. 5).

Thus, raising awareness through educational research could provide a starting point.

Although several education scholars write about the inclusion of children’s literature in a teaching-about-religion curriculum (Ayers & Reid, 2005; Bishop & Nash,

2007; Green & Oldendorf, 2005; Peyton & Jalongo, 2008; Rosenblith & Bailey, 2007;

Whitaker, Salend, & Elhoweris, 2009), the current scholarship is generally reflective of theoretical ideas rather than actual classroom observations of either teachers or students.

Even while states like California have responded to the call for fostering religious literacy as part of the multicultural agenda via the study of world religions in middle school social studies curriculum (Neusner, 2009), little has been reported on teachers’ engagement with materials like children’s literature to specifically foster religious literacy. In contrast, scholars collectively suggest that teachers resist discussions about religion in public schools because teachers believe religion is a taboo topic. (Bloom,

2007; Fraser, 1999; Green and Oldendorf, 2005; Hayne & Thomas, 2007; Moore, 2007;

Noddings, 1993; Nord & Haynes, 1998; Peyton & Renck, 2008; Rosenblith & Baily,

2007; Sanders, Foyil, & Graff, 2010; Whitaker, Salend, & Elhowers, 2009).

Consequently, this study could be one of the first of its kind to critically examine the stances that a large pool of prospective public school teachers occupy in response to works of Latino children’s literature that are not entirely consistent with hegemonic cultural ideologies about religion and that could necessitate mediation. It will contribute to empirical data on which to consider future teachers’ orientations toward teaching-

14 about-religion as part of a multicultural agenda that is responsive to diverse groups of students.

In summary, this study will address multiple interrelated concerns in contemporary multicultural children’s literature and teacher education:

a) It describes the cultural/religious awareness of prospective teacher who are

primarily in their early 20s and are products of the K-12 and post-secondary

multicultural education movement of the last decade;

b) It reveals the kinds of discourses that prospective teachers apply to Latinos as a

minority group;

c) It exposes future teachers to accurate, affirmative works of Latino children’s

literature, as well as to historical, cultural, and religious content about Mexico and

the Mexican Diaspora. Study participants’ increased subject matter knowledge

and heightened cultural awareness could help them to be more responsive

teachers to Latino children; and

d) It raises questions about the ways teacher education programs will not only

disrupt negative narratives about Latinos and other minority groups, but also

foster religious awareness as part of the multicultural education agenda.

Definition of Terms

Multicultural literature embodies a dream of equity for the oppressed groups.

- Mingshui Cai, 2003, p. 16.

What follows is a brief definition of multicultural children’s literature of which

Latino children’s literature is a genre.

Definition

Under the umbrella of children’s literature, there is a subset of text, which has been labeled “multicultural children’s literature” (Sims-Bishop, 1997). Multicultural children’s literature, like multicultural education, responds to the political call for inclusion and curriculum improvement by and for groups of people that have been disenfranchised by mainstream culture (Taxel, 1992; Willis & Harris, 1997). In short, multicultural children’s literature portrays the experiences of people who are not middle- class, white European Americans, and includes texts, which reflect the ethnic, cultural, and social diversity that is represented in our local, national, and global pluralistic society. Some scholars suggest that multicultural literature could also includes texts that explore gender identity and sexual orientation as well as the experiences of people who have physical and/or cognitive challenges or other special needs (Harris, 1994; Smith,

1993). Smith (1993) argues that although the scope of the discussion on multicultural children’s literature generally focuses on people of color, the concept of multiculturalism can be interpreted more broadly, to be inclusive of “any persons whose lifestyle, enforced or otherwise, distinguishes them as identifiable members of a group other than the mainstream” (p. 341). Harris (1994) specifies that multicultural children’s literature includes not only books about people of color, but also books about “the elderly, gays and lesbians, religious minorities, language minorities, people with disabilities, gender issues, and concerns about class” (p. 117). Finally, Kiefer (2010) suggests that in lieu of the term multicultural literature, a more broad and inclusive term might be “literature of diversity” (p. 85). For the purposes of this discussion, multicultural children’s literature is

16 defined as children’s literature by, for, and/or about members of groups that have been historically marginalized by the dominant cultural group.

Mirrors and windows. Multicultural children’s literature provides mirrors, which reflect the images of students from a diverse range of ethnic, cultural, and social backgrounds and provides windows, through which readers could view and ideally come to appreciate the lived experiences of people who are different from them (Botelho &

Rudman, 2009; Sims-Bishop, 1994, 1997). From a literary perspective, the label

‘multicultural children’s literature’ is assigned to text that are either overtly about persons or groups who are not reflected in mainstream society or to texts that engage readers, who may or may not be familiar with the culture in which story is set, in a cultured reading experience (Cai, 2003). From a pedagogical perspective, multicultural children’s literature advances the objectives for multicultural education in the classroom by supplying multicultural curriculum (Cai, 2003) and facilitating the cultural mediation of students’ interpretations (Enciso, 1997; Medina 2006).

Categories and Types of Multicultural Children’s Literature

While many non-fiction and fiction books provide outstanding material to support multicultural education objectives, it is important to consider the different categories and qualities of the books that are available (Barrera & Garza de Cortes, 1997; Gilton, 2007;

Hade, 1997; Taxel, 1992). Cai and Sims-Bishop (1994) outline three general categories of texts under the umbrella of multicultural children’s literature: world literature, cross- cultural literature, and literature from parallel cultures. Kiefer (2010) adds one more category to the list, intersecting cultures.

Global literature. World or global literature is “either set outside the United

States or written by persons other than Americans with settings that are undefined…

[B]ooks by Americans with clearly identified settings outside of the United States [are also categorized] as global literature” (Lehman, Freeman, & Scharer, 2010. p. 16).

Fiction, folktales, adaptations, and similar texts are part of the world/global literature category.

Cross-cultural. Cross-cultural literature reflects the cultural gaps in our global society that need to be bridged. This category includes texts, which demonstrate that there could be gaps between the writer’s cultural lens and the cultural perspective of the people featured in the text. Cross-cultural texts usually fall into one of two subcategories: intercultural/interracial text or parallel culture texts by outsider authors.

Intercultural/interracial. This subcategory includes books that demonstrate positive intercultural and/or interracial relationships. These books describe culture- crossing experiences such as being an immigrant or ethnic minority who must adjust to a new cultural environment. They also include textually and/or visually characters from different ethnic or cultural backgrounds. Alternately, they develop stories about these characters about topics that are not related to prejudice or conflict.

Parallel culture by outsider authors. This second subcategory of cross-cultural texts includes books by white/outsider authors about the experiences of people from parallel cultures. (Parallel cultures is a term coined by author Virginia Hamilton

(1988/2010) to demonstrate the equal status of people who are members of ethnic or cultural groups that have been historically marginalized by the mainstream culture.) The

18 authors of these texts try to assume an insider perspective in writing about the lived experience of a member of a parallel culture of which they do not belong.

Parallel culture by inside authors. Under the multicultural children’s literature umbrella, this category represents parallel culture literature, “the literature of a cultural group” (Cai & Sims Bishop, 1997, p. 66). No matter how credible the work, a text by an outsider author is not eligible for inclusion in the category of parallel culture literature because a cultural group’s perspective can only be acquired via experience. This category is specifically reserved for insider writers, who best represent the collective consciousness, lived experiences, and self-image of their cultural groups. Cai and Sims

Bishop (1997) recommend that teachers select multicultural books primarily from the category of parallel culture literature.

Intersecting cultures. This category, “represents mixed-race or biracial individuals who desire to be identified by their own unique cultural and racial heritage rather than by a label that implies only one race or ethnicity" (Kiefer, 2010, p. 85).

Chapter Overviews

In alignment with the research questions, the literature review sections included in

Chapter Two establish theoretical and pedagogical frameworks for this study. This chapter is divided into five sections: (a) Background; (b) Theoretical Framework; (c)

Censorship and Subject Positioning; (d) Religion and Multiculturalism; (e) Critical

Literacy and Multicultural Children’s Literature.

The background section establishes a context for discussing the way Latinos are regarded in American dominant Discourse (Gee, 2011). The theoretical framework

19 section begins with an overview of sociocultural theory and New Literacy Studies and then examines James Gee’s (2011) concepts of “Discourses” (with a capital “D”) and

“figured worlds.” The section on censorship and subject positioning reviews the literature on the intersection between teachers’ acceptance and rejection of certain works of multicultural children’s literature and the their ideological orientations toward the text. In this section, Richard Beach’s (1997) reader response theory of subject positioning is used to synthesize the types of stances prospective, preservice, and practicing teachers assume in their reading. The next section examines the constructs of critical literacy and establishes the pedagogical framework for the sequence of this study. Finally, the last section provides overview of the debates and issues associated with religion in public education. The latter part of this section reviews the academic literature on using multicultural children’s literature to teach about religious-cultural perspectives.

Chapter Three provides a detailed description of the design and methodology for the data collection and analysis employ for each research question. Chapter Four provides the results of the data collection and analysis and engages in a discussion about the results. Chapter Five reports on the conclusions and implications of the study.

CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Conflicting Discourses

This first section of Chapter Two begins with an introduction of James Gee’s

(1989) concept of Discourse (with a capital “D”). Next, Gee’s concept of Discourse is applied to an encounter between Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and the iconic image of

La Virgen de Guadalupe (Guadalupe), the patroness of Mexico and the Mexican

Diaspora. This discussion leads to the subsequent introductions of the Latino Threat

Narrative (LTN) (Chavez, 2008), the Anglo-American Narrative (AAN) (Santa Ana,

2002), and Gee’s (2011) concept of figured worlds, which concludes the section.

Discourse with a Capital “D”

Renown literacy scholar and social linguist James Paul Gee (2008) proposes that

Discourses with a capital “D” are unconscious and uncritical socially accepted ways of speaking/listening and writing/reading that are “coupled with distinctive ways of acting, interacting, valuing, feeling, dressing, thinking, believing, with other people and with various objects, tools, and technologies, so as to enact specific socially recognizable identities engaged in specific socially recognizable activities…” (p. 155, emphasis in original). Discourses are ideological in nature and advance the values and viewpoints of the social group they represent. They define who is an insider and who is an outsider to the social groups and oftentimes who or what is “normal” and who or what isn’t. 21

Moreover, Gee (2008) explains that Discourses regard the distribution and acquisition of social goods in a society such as money, power, and status. “Discourses that lead to social goods in a society are dominant Discourses… [and] those groups that have the fewest conflicts when using them are dominant groups” (Gee, 2008, p. 161).

Participation in a Discourse requires the ability to partake in “a particular sort of

‘dance’ with words, deeds, values, feelings, other people, objects, tools, technologies, places, and times” (Gee, 2008, p. 155) in order to be perceived as being conversant in the

Discourse. To understand a Discourse, one must be able to distinguish the metaphorical dances.

To follow Gee’s dance metaphor, lack of understanding can be like trying to dance a tango with two left feet or without knowing the steps. Neither foot is practiced in going in a direction that favors a different Discourse. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary

Clinton provided an example of this phenomenon during her diplomatic bridge-building visit to Mexico City on March 29, 2009. Andrew Malcom (2009) of the Los Angeles

Times reports on the visit:

[T]he Methodist [Hillary Clinton] took time out in Mexico City to visit the

Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe to deliver a bouquet of white flowers on

behalf of the American people. Catholics believe that almost 500 years ago the

image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was miraculously imprinted on the cloak of St.

Juan Diego, who became the Catholic church’s first saint indigenous to the

Americas in 2002. According to news agency reports [Catholic News Agency],

the basilica’s rector, Msgr. Diego Monroy, had had the image lowered from its

altar for a closer look by the visiting dignitary.

“Who painted it?” Clinton asked.

“God,” the rector replied.

Clinton also lighted a candle during her 30-minute visit and, on her way out, told

a crowd of Mexicans, “You have a marvelous virgin.” (para. 1)

Clinton is knowledgeable and well-traveled ambassador. Her well-intentioned public gesture at the basilica, however, revealed the way both of her feet appeared to favor dominant American Discourse. Clinton’s faux pas in asking who painted the

Virgin’s image suggests that she was not aware of the historical and cultural underpinnings of a dominant Discourse among Mexicans and among U.S.-born

Americans and immigrants of Mexican heritage. In this Discourse, the image of the

Virgin of Guadalupe is not only the miraculous product of a divine religious apparition, but also the icon of Mexican independence and identity.

Underpinnings of the Discourse of La Virgen de Guadalupe

This next section considers the basic history and culture that inform a dominant

Discourse of many Mexicans and Mexican Americans, of which familiarity might have benefitted Clinton during her visit to the basilica. This background information is relevant to understanding the inclusion of La Virgen de Guadalupe’s (Guadalupe’s) image in the picturebooks for this study.

In fifteenth-century Spain, Castilian Catholicism was a regional (folk) interpretation of Roman Catholicism. This folk practice of Catholicism, which included

23 the veneration of local saints, was imported from Spain to Mexico and to other areas of

Latin America with Hernan Cortez, the conquistadors, missionaries, and Spanish settlers.

Due to isolation, the missionaries and settlers of New Spain continued, largely unaffected by Church reforms, to practice this medieval form of Catholicism. They used elements of this folk tradition in attempting to abolish local religion and to indoctrinate native peoples of Mexico into Castilian Catholicism so they would be easier to govern. These conversion and indoctrination attempts significantly altered native religion, but did not completely abolish it. What resulted was a hybridization of beliefs and practices that were local to Mexico, such as the veneration of Guadalupe. (Badillo, 2006; Poole, 1997).

Devotions to La Virgen de Guadalupe

More than Catholic doctrine, Castilians were generally concerned with devotions to the Virgin Mary and local patron saints, as evidenced by many local cults (Poole, 1997).

Stories of apparitions of the Virgin Mary and local saints were part of the devotion tradition and led to the construction of local shrines or chapels in sixteenth-century Spain.

As Poole (1997) describes, the apparition stories usually followed a formula wherein a poor, marginalized person in society is rejected and then vindicated, thus inverting the dominant power structures. A typical example would be one in which the Virgin or saint appears to a humble man and commands that he build a sanctuary at the site of the apparition. Skeptics, who usually include civil authorities, question the vision. Then, the

Virgin or saint identifies her/himself to the viewer and offers reassurance. He usually offers some sign or performs a miracle that converts the skeptics, and the marginalized person prevails over the rich and powerful persons.

Two such Castilian stories influence the renowned apparition story of Our Lady of

Guadalupe of Mexico (Poole, 1997). The popular story of Our Lady of Guadalupe of

Extremenadura, local to the same area of Spain as Cortez, the conquistadors, and early settlers of New Spain (Mexico), is one contributor. The second is the story of the Virgin of Los Remedios. This story originates with a conquistador who carried a statue of the

Virgin with him from Spain to Mexico. The story is set on the peninsula of Mexico and regards the disappearance and reappearance of the statue (Poole, 1997).

Perhaps the most powerful influence of the Castilian Catholic Church on the peoples of Mexico was the introduction of and devotion to La Virgen de Guadalupe. In this apparition story, the location of the Virgin’s appearance on the hillside at Tepeyac is highly significant. According to some historians, Tepeyac was the location of a pre-

Hispanic shrine dedicated to the Goddess Tonantzin, whom the indigenous people knew as the Mother of the Gods (Poole, 1997). After Cortez’s conquest of Mexico, the Church placed statues and images of the Spanish Virgin Mary at indigenous mystic and sacred places (Poole, 1997).

Combined with Catholic indoctrination by church missionaries, the Spanish government expected that the people of Mexico would transfer their worship of indigenous gods to Catholic saints and become easier to control via religion (Badillo,

2006; Poole, 1997). Instead, a conflation of indigenous belief with Spanish Catholic religious structure resulted (Badillo, 2006). The Virgin of Guadalupe was ultimately selected the patron saint of all Spanish dominions in 1757 (Poole, 1997). Devotion to the

Virgin is imbued in popular culture across Latin America and in Latino communities in

25 the United States. Today, millions of people celebrate the Feast of the Virgin of

Guadalupe, a national holiday in Mexico, on December 12. Festivities include processions, dances, music, prayers, and fireworks.

The Virgin of Guadalupe, however, is much more than a religious figure. She is a historical, political, sociocultural, and feminine icon whose image has repeatedly adorned revolutionary banners, from Miguel Hidalgo’s bid for Mexican Independence in 1810 to

Emiliano Zapata’s call for Revolution in 1910 to Cesar Chavez’s work for fair wages and labor practices for farm workers in the 1960s and 1970s. She is, in the words of Gloria

Anzaldúa (1996),

a synthesis of the old world and the new, of the religion and culture of the

two races in our psyche, the conquerors and the conquered. She is the symbol of

the mestizo true to his or her Indian values. La cultura chicana identifies with the

mother (Indian) rather than with the father (Spanish) . . . . Guadalupe unites

people of different races, religions, languages: Chicano protestants, American

Indians and whites. . . . She mediates between the Spanish and the Indian cultures

(or three cultures as in the case of mexicanos of African or other ancestry) and

between humans and the divine, between this reality and the reality of spirit

entities. La Virgen de Guadalupe is the symbol of ethnic identity and of the

tolerance for ambiguity that Chicanos/mexicanos, people of mixed race, people

who have Indian blood, people who cross cultures, by necessity possess. (pp. 53–

54)

As a mediator of race, religion, and culture, La Virgen de Guadalupe is a symbol of humanity and unity that is unrestricted by borders. She is the icon of a “spiritual transfusion across the U.S.-Mexico frontier” (Martinez, 1996, p. 98), by which her image is ubiquitous in both the homeland and the diaspora.

La Virgen de Guadalupe, who is locally significant and encompasses multiple identities, is a central figure not just to Mexicans but also to Mexican Americans,

Clinton’s countrymen and women. The lack of cultural and religious awareness typified by Clinton’s misstep could be viewed as indicative of one’s membership in a dominant social/cultural group. Gee (2008) identifies dominant groups as the groups in society that have the fewest inconsistencies or conflicts in participating in dominant Discourses.

Generally speaking, Discourses are not simply ideological as they regard a range of perspectives and values about the distribution of social goods. Discourses influence the rules for determining who is and is not an insider and as who is or is not “normal” in addition to serving other functions (Gee, 2008). Consequently, members of a dominant group have limited need to enact critical literacy practices and to learn other metaphorical dances because their expertise in the dominant Discourse successfully facilitates their acquisition of social goods such as status and power in society.

As a representative of the American populous, however, Clinton’s lack of awareness could be illustrative of the pervasiveness of two historical narratives. The first narrative is that the United States is a white, Protestant-Christian nation (Noddings,

1993). The second is that regardless of U.S. citizenship, persons of Mexican heritage are not Americans (Chavez, 2008; Chomsky, 2007; Santa Ana, 2002). Though it may have

27 been intended as a way of acknowledging Mexican culture and religious beliefs, the

Secretary of State’s gesture at the basilica was perhaps a truer representation of the collective consciousness of many Americans in the dominant group.

Connection to Dominant Discourse: Latino Threat Narrative

Identifying Latinos as non-American outsiders in the Dominant discourse is one function of the Latino Threat Narrative (LTN) (Chavez, 2008). Chavez (2008) proposes that the objective of the Latino Threat Narrative (LTN) is to cast Latinos as “others” who are threatening and dangerous to the American populous. Language binaries such as

“citizen/foreigner, real Americans/Mexicans or real Americans/ Hispanics, natives/enemies, us/them, and legitimate/illegal” (p. 41) position as invaders Mexican and Latin American immigrants and U.S.-born Americans of Latin American descent.

Chavez (2008) explains that, in the LTN:

Latinos are not like previous immigrant groups, who ultimately became part of

the nation. According to the assumptions and taken-for-granted “truths” inherent

in this narrative, Latinos are unwilling or incapable of integrating, of becoming

part of the national community. Rather, they are part of an invading force from

south of the border that is bent on reconquering [sic] land that was formerly theirs

(the U.S. Southwest) and destroying the American way of life. Although

Mexicans are often the focus of the Latino Threat Narrative, public discourse . . .

often includes immigration from Latin America in general, as well as U.S.-born

Americans of Latin American descent.” (p. 3)

Taking this threat so seriously, in January 2012 Tucson Unified School District banned its K-12 Mexican American studies program and eliminated texts that could potentially rally U.S.-born Americans and immigrants of Latin American heritage in rising up against white Americans. This was the sentiment expressed by TUSD school board member Michael Hicks in an April 3, 2012 interview on The Daily Show a nationally televised program.

Conversations and Historical Development of Discourse: Who is “American?”

The Tucson School District’s banning of Mexican American studies, a contentious public issue, is an example of what Gee calls Conversations with a capital

“C.” Conversations are public debates and themes in society by which most people have a sense of who the stakeholders are and what side of the issue they support (Gee, 2011).

Conversations reflect the kinds of things that are regarded as being sayable, and/or appropriate in regard to a specific topic or theme (Gee, 1999). While people often recognize the values of the Conversations in a contemporary context, most are unaware of the historical events or circumstances that cultivated the themes and values that continue to thrive today (Gee, 1999). The values that foster Conversations are imbued in both past and current texts and media and are steeped in historical meanings that shape the Discourses (Gee, 1999).

One might also need to keep in mind that current Discourses have developed over the course of history. Gee (2008) proposes that “it is not individuals who speak and act, but rather the historically and socially defined Discourses speak to each other through individuals” (p. 162). He sees that individuals exemplify Discourses though their action

29 and language and contribute to the evolution of the Discourse over time, even though they might not recognize their role in the process.

To illustrate this concept that Discourses are the products of historical evolution, consider the “melting pot myth” by which many histories of the United States portray national identity as a melting pot of ethnically and racially diverse immigrants. Aviva

Chomsky (2007) argues that counter to this myth, the longstanding assumption in history is that white Europeans are the true American citizens. She proposes, “everything from the Constitution to immigration and naturalization law, to the political, social, and economic factors . . . have been founded on and perpetuated by the notion that the United

States is, and should be, a white country” (p. 90). Thus, it is for these reasons that many immigrants who are not Europeans “have not assimilated in the same way that Europeans have” (Chomsky, 2007, p. 90).

Similarly, Santa Ana (2002), who is know for his work in examining the historical, political, and institutional roots of anti-Latino discourse, argues that as long as the historical norm maintains whites as true Americans, “Latinos will not be seen as full citizens inasmuch as the metaphors of public discourse constitute the national stage.

[Rather,] Latinos will be seen as foreigners in their native land” (p. 291). Akin to

Chavez’s LTN, Santa Ana argues that an Anglo-American narrative (AAN) is prevalent in dominant Discourse. It defines U.S.-born Americans and immigrants of Latino heritage as non-English speaking foreigners. Santa Ana (2002) argues that in order for persons of Latino heritage to “prove their loyalty to the hegemony of Anglo-American culture” (p. 289), they must embrace the AAN in three ways. They must: (a) present

30 themselves as monolingual English speakers; (b) present themselves as white-identified by rejecting all “foreign” qualities associated with being from Latin America; and (c) try to become white is as many ways as possible, which includes accepting that racial hierarchy that ranks white Americans superior to Americans of darker skin tone (Santa

Ana, 2002).

Chavez’s, Chomsky’s and Santa Anna’s research speaks to the ways in which the underpinnings of anti-Latino sentiment in the dominant Discourse is not only historically informed, but also so pervasive that it is accepted among many members of the dominant group. To provide a recent example, local and national news outlets reported on a March

7, 2012, high school basketball game in San Antonio, Texas. NBC Sports described the game:

Alamo Heights High School, which is made up mostly of Caucasian students, beat

Edison High, which is predominantly Hispanic, in the Region IV-4A

championship. . . . As Alamo players celebrated the win on the court, a large

group of students began cheering “USA! USA!” until the Alamo coach made

them stop. Deeming the cheer a racist slur on the Edison players, the San Antonio

Independent School District, which represents Edison, filed a complaint with the

University Interscholastic League, the governing body of high school sports in the

area. (Chandler, 2012)

At this game, some of the predominantly white Alamo High students gave voice to the dominant Discourse that excludes Latinos from American nationality. Here, the

USA cheer, commonly associated with international sports competitions between

31 different countries, was applied to a local competition between two teams in the same community. The only difference was the athletes’ heritage.

Connection to Figured Worlds: Outsiders

The anti-Latino sentiment on the Alamo basketball court can also be understood to stem from the students’ figured worlds. Much like the taken-for-granted “truths” to which Chavez references in the LTN and Santa Ana references in the AAN, Gee’s (2011) concept of figured worlds can be understood as our “first thoughts or taken-for-granted assumptions about what is typical or normal” (1999, p. 59). They represent a set of socially and culturally constructed theories, models, narratives, and images from which we construe our ideas of what is typical or normal of things, people, activities, and/or interactions. In other words, figured worlds reflect our simplified versions of reality that sometimes overlook real-world complexities.

Specifically, the Latino Threat Narrative (LTN) includes many taken for granted assumptions that constitute a figured world. One of these assumptions is that no matter whether U.S.-born or immigrant, Latinos represent homogeneous groups whose status in society has not evolved over time. Chavez (2008) suggests further that in the dominant

Discourse, Latinos are assumed to be monolingual Spanish speakers who “are impervious to the influences of the larger society, …[are] segregated into ethnic enclaves, …marry only their own kind, …[demonstrate] unwillingness to integrate, …[reside] outside the practices of citizenship/subject-making and [are] incapable of feelings of belonging” (pp.

41-42). He sees that the LTN establishes a distinct binary between citizens and non- citizens that significantly privileges some members of society over others.

Ultimately, the LTN “casts Latinos, whites, and everyone else into immutable categories of race, ethnicity, and culture …and creates divisiveness [that] …undermines the integration of Latinos into society” (p. 184). In doing so, this narrative illustrates

Gee’s (2011) point that our simplified notions of “normal” on which our figured worlds are based “can do harm by implanting in thought and action unfair, dismissive or derogatory assumptions about other people” (p. 77).

Based on our notions of “normal” it is common to judge people, situations, or events as being different (atypical) and thereby deviant. Gee (2011) warns of the danger in interpreting “atypical” or “different” in terms of being “abnormal,” “unacceptable,” or simply “not right.” This is hazardous as figured worlds could be used to judge things such as: “‘appropriate’ attitudes, viewpoints, beliefs, and values; ‘appropriate’ ways of acting, interacting, and participating . . . ; ‘appropriate’ social and institutional organizational structures; ‘appropriate’ ways of talking, listening writing, reading, and communicating; ‘appropriate’ ways to feel or display emotion . . . and so on” (p. 90). In the end, our judgments could be complicit with the exclusion and oppression of people who are not members of the dominant social or cultural group.

This first section of Chapter Two has introduced the concepts of Discourse and figured worlds and has illustrated their relevance to the anti-Latino narrative of the dominant Discourse. The next section draws a connection to the ways social Discourses and figured worlds inform and influence teachers in the classroom.

Theoretical Framework: Discourse and Teacher Beliefs

By the time teachers enter the field of education, they have already developed complex views about literature and literary engagement (Grossman, 1990). These views are interconnected with the prospective teachers’ beliefs and social Discourses. This section attempts to provide an introductory foray into the study of prospective teachers’ beliefs and discourse and tries to clarify some of the factors that influence teachers’ attitudes, inform their classroom pedagogies for reading and English/language arts instruction, and ultimately have an effect on their students. This section is not exhaustive in any way. Each topic and subtopic merits deep investigation. Certainly, multiple interpretations, arguments, and frameworks have and will be applied to the story of the interconnectedness of teachers’ attitudes and experiences and Discourses with a capital

“D” (Gee, 2011) with reading and their approaches to the English language arts. This section is an entrée into a multifaceted story. The discussion here regards teachers’ personal histories, subject matter and pedagogical knowledge, classroom practice, and the union between teachers’ beliefs/orientations and their work with students, each of which could be influenced by teachers’ figured worlds, their taken-for-granted theories about what is normal in the world (Gee, 2011).

Conceptual Framework

This study is grounded in sociocultural theory. Within the framework of sociocultural theory, readers, texts, and contexts are intrinsically connected and indivisible of the local, social, cultural, historical, and global contexts from which they originated (Galda & Beach, 2001). Under sociocultural theory, this section applies the

34 lens of New Literacies Studies (NLS), “a body of work that argues that reading and writing should be viewed not only as mental achievements going on inside people’s heads, but also as social and cultural practices with economic, historical, and political implications” (Gee, 2007,p. 9). With respect to NLS, Xu (2007) suggests that literacy regards the capacity to advance beyond the production and understanding of text to incorporate multiple modes of meaning. Literacy and thinking are influenced by one’s membership in different social and/or cultural groups, which, via various social practices, inform the ways people read and think about certain types of text (Gee, 2007).

Literacy practices, as Barton and Hamilton (1998) see them, define the “cultural ways of utilizing literacy” (p. 7). These practices are framed by social rules that not only govern the accessibility and use of text, but also reflect the “social processes” (Barton &

Hamilton, 1998, p. 7) that join people together and foster like ways of thinking, illustrated by common social identities and ideologies. Congruently, Brian Street (1997) considers literacy to be ideological in nature because literacy practices are intertwined with the structures of power and culture in society.

As schools participate in society’s culture and power structures, and as they can reinforce mainstream literacy expectations in the form of school-based literacy practices

(Heath, 1983), it may be helpful to consider the context of this union between school and society. Gee (2008) argues that school-based literacy is influenced by the goals and ideals of society’s middle class elites who “control knowledge, ideas, ‘culture,’ and values” (p.

62). He suggests that academic literacy is usually most accessible to middle and upper middle-class students, given that many middle-class parents enact and rehearse with their

35 young children school-based literacy and language practices. Rogoff (2003) concurs. She observes the forms of communication and interaction that are common to school settings are often mirrored in European American middle-class settings.

In middle-class families, children may start to assimilate the logic of the dominant school culture at an early age, as they often experience books, school-like conversations, and vocabulary, such that they can “talk like a book” before they learn to read (Rogoff,

2003). They also acquire Discourse that is ideological in that it specifically informs the middle-class child’s values, viewpoints, and ways of being as a future student in our writing-based society. Each time the young child has a social encounter or participates in literacy events with books (Street, 2000), she acquires the knowledge and mental resources (tools) to include in her toolbox or identity kit (Gee, 1989) for her future role as a “good reader.” As her book experiences are often scaffolded and supported by a parent or caregiver, the Discourse is acculturated into the child and may be integrated into the child’s comprehensive sense of identity, which Gee calls one’s primary discourse.

Hence, the child begins her rehearsal of the sociocultural literacy practices that are employed during each literary event of book reading.

Since the majority of teachers in the United States are white females (U.S.

Department of Education, 2008), commonly from rural or suburban white, middle-class families (Zeichner et al., 1998), the link between dominant middle-class ways-of-being and school is reinforced (Seidl, 2007). This link supports hegemonic literacy practice, as many teachers who attended American public schools themselves likewise experienced a

Eurocentric approach to education. As teachers are influenced by their own educational

36 experiences and perform the same ways their teachers performed (Britzman, 2003, Lortie,

1975), there is great potential for passing from one generation of teachers to the next certain figured worlds (Gee, 2011) for “normal” ways of teaching and responding to literature. This cycle of reinforcing common figured worlds could be at the detriment of students who are not members of the same cultural and social groups as their teachers.

Factors that Shape Teachers’ Beliefs and Knowledge

A belief, Richardson (1996) defines, is a “proposition that is accepted by the individual holding the belief. It is a psychological concept; knowledge, on the other hand, implies epistemic warrant” (p. 104). Both accepted propositions and held warrants are impressed by an individual’s culture, environment, and experiences.

Shaping teachers’ beliefs about teaching. Speaking generally, prospective teachers’ attitudes, beliefs and practices can be shaped by any number of societal and cultural factors such as one’s gender, socio-economic background, family, culture, and life choices (Richardson, 1996). Perhaps the most influential factors are the prospective teachers’ personal educational histories and experiences (Britzman, 1986, 2003; Lortie,

1975/2002). Such experiences shape the teachers’ notions of what constitutes a “normal” stance toward education in their figured worlds for classroom teaching.

Britzman (1986) suggests that teachers’ personal histories are “implicit institutional biographies—the cumulative experience of school lives” (p. 443). She proposes that these biographies serve as the foundation for prospective teachers’ understanding of school, curriculum, and the student experience, and as their frame of reference for their identities as teachers. In other words, they serve as prototypes of

“normal” teaching. Based on her case study research of secondary high school student teachers, Britzman (2003) also sees that prospective teachers’ biographies are often the source of some teachers’ ambivalence about the role and work of teachers.

Britzman’s concept that prospective teachers carry institutional biographies is consistent with Lortie’s (1975/2002) theory of an apprenticeship of observation. Lortie

(1975/2002) argues that for many prospective teachers, their 13 years of studentship in grades K–12 constitute for them a 13-year apprenticeship in the trade of teaching.

Consequently, many prospective teachers’ beliefs and behaviors are a reflection of their studentship. I use the term studentship because, in reality, the prospective teachers were apprenticed to the student trade and not the teaching trade, even though both trades were housed in the same classroom work site (Lortie, 1975/2002).

Congruent with Lortie’s (1975/2002) and Britzman’s (2003) observations, Holt-

Reynolds (1992), in her study of nine secondary preservice teachers in a content area reading course, found that the teachers’ drew from their background experiences to define, “what ‘good’ teaching should look, sound, and feel like” (p. 343). She reports that the teachers’ conceptions about what a teacher does and thinks, “combine to personify a

‘good’ teacher—working behind the scenes as invisible, often tacitly known criteria for evaluating the potential efficacy of ideas, theories, and strategies of instruction they encounter as they formally study teaching” (p. 343). Similarly, Knowles and Holt-

Reynolds (1991) argue that prospective teachers’ beliefs are often founded on their remembered youthful selves as students.

From a NLS perspective, teachers’ implicit biographies, apprenticeships of observation, and remembered youthful selves could be shaped by figured worlds that, in turn, shape teachers’ beliefs. Put simply, figured worlds are like silent movies of the mind. They are comprised of commonplace stories, images, and ideas that show an idealized concept of “normal,” which can differ across cultural groups (Gee, 2011).

These movies are silent because we are not usually aware that we are listening to them.

For teachers who are members of the dominant cultural group, such idealized scenes could reflect values and perspectives that are complicit with mainstream oppression of minority groups (Gee, 2008).

Shaping teachers’ knowledge and classroom practice. This section considers the factors that inform teachers’ subject matter knowledge and teaching pedagogies. This discussion also includes knowledge about Discourses that are not usually common to the dominant group as subject matter knowledge.

Subject matter knowledge. In general, the level of teachers’ subject matter knowledge in any discipline informs the content teachers will teach, as well as the process and/or pedagogy by which they will teach (Fisher, Fox, and Paille, 1996;

Grossman, 1990; Grossman, Wilson, & Shulman, 1989; Shulman, 1987). Shulman

(1987) offers this anecdote in thinking about the relationship between a teacher’s subject matter knowledge and classroom pedagogy:

We expect a math major to understand mathematics or a history specialist to

comprehend history. But the key to distinguishing the knowledge base of

teaching lies at the intersection of content and pedagogy, in the capacity of a

teacher to transform the content knowledge he or she possesses into forms that are

pedagogically powerful and yet adaptive to the variations in ability and

background presented by the students…

Comprehended ideas must be transformed in some manner if they are to

be taught. To reason one’s way through an act of teaching is to think one’s way

from the subject matter as understood by the teacher into the minds and

motivations of learners…

Preparation involves examining and critically interpreting the materials of

instruction in terms of the teacher’s own understanding of the subject matter

(Ben-Peretz, 1975). That is, one scrutinizes the teaching material in light of one’s

own comprehension and asks whether it is ‘fit to be taught.’ (pp. 15 – 16)

Shulman’s (1987) theory that teachers scrutinize teaching materials in light of their own comprehension and ask whether they are “fit to be taught” corresponds with

Gee’s (2011) concept of figured worlds. Our comprehension of subject matter may be influenced by our notion of what is normal. Our acceptance and/or rejection of teaching materials may result from our reliance on simplified prototypes of what is “appropriate” in our figured worlds. It is not uncommon to use our figured worlds to judge people, situations, or events as being different (atypical) and thereby deviant. To the contrary, it is this very kind of judgment that takes the notion of who is a “typical” American and deems U.S.-born Americans and immigrants of Latino heritage as atypical and thereby deviant.

One’s comprehension of subject matter is influenced by one’s notion of “normal” or “appropriate.” In turn, teachers’ figured worlds and subject matter knowledge, which includes knowledge of other Discourses, affect their notions about accommodating certain content and curriculum. The dangers of this process are in the cyclical ways that harmful attitudes, such as those reflected in the Latino Threat Narrative, are sustained through the dominant Discourse, while the Discourse of U.S.-born American and immigrants of Latino heritage are dismissed or marginalized at best. See Appendix L for a diagram of this cycle.

Summary

This section has examined the factors that shape and are shaped by teachers’ beliefs and perspectives, and teachers’ subject matter and pedagogy knowledge.

Prospective teachers’ attitudes and beliefs are influenced by cultural factors such as gender, socioeconomic background, family culture, and life choices, and by their institutional biographies and apprenticeships as students for most of their lives. These biographies and apprenticeships inform and are informed by figured worlds, everyday assumptions about who or what is “normal,” which can be reflective of dominant ideologies about race, class, gender, culture, and sexuality that maintain the oppression of minority groups. The breadth of teachers’ subject matter knowledge influences the curriculum and content teachers choose to teach. The more confident teachers feel about their subject matter knowledge, the more confident they may be to expand and diversity their curriculum.

Collectively, the research outlined in this second section suggest that there could be a cyclical quality in the way figured worlds might be passed from one generation of teachers onto students who will become the next generation of teachers. Given that predominantly white middle class women fill most of the teaching positions, this cycle could have significant consequence on the growing, diverse population of student who attend public school. With this in mind, the next section in this chapter examines the kinds of ideological stances that teachers adopt in response to multicultural children’s literature.

Censorship and Subject Positioning

This section returns to the problem of teacher censorship as described in the introduction of Chapter One. The national Conversation about the censorship of teaching materials is alive and well, punctuated by school district book bans and the American

Library Association’s annual press release of the most frequently challenged books per year. Such debate, in and of itself, can dissuade teachers from selecting books that might counter dominant Discourse (Wollman-Bonilla, 1998). Less recognized, by the public and by teachers themselves, censorship is a regular occurrence in school. Teachers select, choose, and make up their minds as to what kinds of texts and materials to use with their students based on their political beliefs and notions of what their roles are in the education system. The way teachers privilege, exclude, and modify texts legitimate specific types of literature, reading, and response as being “appropriate” and thereby

42 conforming to the Discourse of the dominant group (Jones, 2006; Taxel, 1994).

Furthermore, this censorship may be complicit with the oppression of subordinate groups

(Freire & Macedo, 1987; Giroux, 1987).

This section considers the intersection between teachers’ ideologies and their selection and rejection of multicultural children’s literature. The discussion begins with a brief examination of the scholarly literature on teacher censorship. The second part of the discussion applies Beach’s (1993, 1997) reader response theory of subject positioning in analyzing a body of research on prospective, preservice, and practicing teachers’ orientations toward multicultural children’s literature in the context of teacher education and professional development classes. The third part is dedicated to exploring teachers’ rationales for avoiding “risky content” in multicultural children’s literature. Finally, this chapter draws preliminary conclusions and implications associated with the body of research for this literature review.

Teacher Identity and Censorship

Teachers’ perceptions about their roles in the education system could influence their selection and rejection of multicultural texts for the classroom (Beach, 1993). On the one hand, teachers might see as their duty as public servants the cultivation of a common culture (Giroux, 1987). On the other hand, they might view their responsibility as one of nurturing young people’s agency toward becoming adults who are “subversive, imaginative, liberatory, politically liberated, personally liberated, self-motivated, skeptical, reflective, and inquiring” (Smagorinsky, Jakubiak, & Moore, 2008, pp. 452–

453). The distinct ideological positions that teachers inhabit can determine the quality and quantity of multicultural materials in the classroom.

In terms of quality, it is helpful to keep in mind that classroom materials are not ideologically innocent. Children’s books, for example, implicitly “teach” culture

(Azripe, 2009) because they are cultural artifacts of authors’ worlds (Harris & Willis,

1996). Even picture books are political (Apol, 1998; Cai & Bishop, 2003; Hollindale,

1988; Harris, 1997; Luke & Freebody, 1997; Nodelman, 2008; Stephens, 1992). In short, children’s literature is imbued with socializing messages, which can reinforce the kinds of figured worlds that accept dominant racist, classist, sexist, and ageist biases of dominant Discourse (Apol, 1998; Hollindale, 1988; Nodelman, 2008; Stephens, 1992).

Because writers use narrative tools to orient their readers toward accepting certain values and bias (Luke & Freebody, 1997; Nodelman, 2008), an unexamined use of children’s literature in the classroom could inadvertently reinforce authors’ (and teachers’) passive ideology. According to Hollindale (1988), the author’s ideologies that most influence children are “usually those which are taken for granted by the writer, and reflect the writer’s integration in a society which unthinkingly accepts them” (p. 12). In other words, they privilege the authors’ notion of normal as conceived by their figured worlds.

Many teachers and teacher educators desire the autonomy to select their classroom materials as a means of facilitating their curricular objectives and fostering

“correct or appropriate values” among their students (Luke, Cooke, and Luke, 1986, p.

209). Consequently, the literature teachers select for children to read is likely to

44 correspond with the teachers’ passive ideologies on social, political, and moral issues

(Luke, Cooke, & Luke, 1986). Interested in teachers’ concepts of appropriate books for elementary school children, Luke, Cooke, and Luke (1986) asked 54 preservice teachers enrolled in a three-year teacher preparation program in Queensland Australia first to identify the children’s books they like and second to identify the books they think would benefit children. Their analysis of the preservice teachers’ responses revealed an underlying racial and gender bias particularly among the respondents who had limited experience with children. Many selected books that they enjoyed as children as benefiting their future students. As a result of this study, Luke, Cooke, and Luke (1986) argue that teacher education courses that employ children’s literature need to “address explicitly the matter of the ideological content of children’s literature . . . [and] include concrete discussions of sex, race, and social class stereotyping” (p. 216-217).

Jipson and Paley (1991), who studied the text selections of 55 female elementary school teachers in the U.S., observed the same kind of racial and gender bias that Luke,

Cooke, and Luke (1986) noticed. They found that the texts were unique to each of the teachers’ classrooms and that the texts were reflective of “a multiplicity of curricular, personal, aesthetic, social, as well as ideological factors—all of which vie for teacher attention” (p. 157) and served to enliven course content. The aforementioned studies illustrate implicit bias informing preservice and practicing teachers’ text selections.

Teacher Stance and Subject Positioning

This next section considers the connections between teachers’ ideological orientations and their selection, rejection, and use of multicultural materials and literature

45 for the classroom. With specific regard to literature, Beach’s (1993/1997) reader response theory of subject positioning provides a lens for examining teachers’ orientations toward multicultural texts. According to Beach’s (1997) definition, readers, including teachers, are:

are socialized or positioned to adopt stances associated with their membership or

status in certain communities. These communities subscribe to certain cultural

maps (Enciso, 1997) or discourses constituting ways of knowing or organizing the

world (Gee, 1990; Lemke, 1995). By responding in ways consistent with the

values of a community, readers demonstrate their allegiance to a community’s

values. . . . Readers’ stances are constituted by ideological discourses of gender,

class, and racial differences. (p. 70)

These ideological notions of “normal” representations of gender, class, and racial differences can be reflected in the figured worlds that inform teachers’ stances toward their selection and use of multicultural literature in the classroom.

As an example of subject positioning, Beach (1997) describes the way members of some fundamentalist religions could be socialized to regard the Bible as an actual document of God’s word. They may reinforce their membership in the religious community by recounting their literal interpretations of the Bible to fellow members.

Similarly, membership in broader groups, such as the dominant white middle- class, also influences the readers’ subject position toward multicultural children’s literature. In providing an example of how this subject position influences text availability and selection in the marketplace, Beach (1997) cites a study by Janice

Radway (1988) who analyzed the text selection decisions of the editors for Book-of-the-

Month Club. Radway’s analysis showed that the editors made conscious decisions to select and thus privilege books that were consistent with middle-class values and perspectives so as not to agitate their clientele. In turn, they limited and rejected novels that presented topics and contexts that were atypical or inconsistent with middle-class sensibilities. In this scenario, white middle-class readers who apply dominant middle class values to multicultural children’s literature might reject the text in which the characters resist or fail to reinforce these values.

With regard to multicultural literature that depicts racial conflict, Beach (1997) found that students regarded prejudice as a set of attitudes or opinions maintained by individuals rather than institutions. The students conceived of racial discrimination in terms of an individual’s failure to comprehend that “we are all human” and thus, “we are all the same.” This view of prejudice and racism sees a problem that varies from person to person instead of a pervasive institutional issue.

Beach (1997) suggests that this “individual prejudice” stance is pervasive in mass media. As an example, Beach references a series about racism that aired in 1992 on “The

Oprah Winfrey Show.” In this series, racism is cast as an individual’s prejudice. It is portrayed as a psychological condition that is resolved through individual and group psychotherapy sessions that facilitate one’s release of anger and offer empathetic support and forgiveness. In taking the stance that prejudice reflects an individual’s psychological outlook, members of the dominant group can avoid examining (and owning) the institutions of prejudice. Such a stance is explicitly reflected in a popular Public Service

Announcement (PSA) that aired on television in the early 1980s. This PSA depicts a conversation between a young white boy and his grandfather while fishing:

Young Boy: Yesterday, Jimmy said I was prejudiced.

Grandpa: Do you know what prejudice is?

Young Boy: No

Grandpa: Well, prejudice is when you react to someone because of their religion

or their color.

Young Boy: But I don’t do that.

Grandpa: Who is Jimmy?

Young Boy: Jimmy is one of my Jewish friends.

Grandpa: Then you are prejudiced because you think of Jimmy as your Jewish

friend and not your friend.

In this PSA, Grandpa essentially diagnoses his grandson with an individual prejudice disorder in his judgment, “you are prejudice.” Grandpa’s diagnosis could be reflective of the ubiquitous quality of this individual prejudice narrative in the dominant

Discourse. Examining why the young boy refers to Jimmy as his Jewish friend in the

PSA could require an analysis of the dominant Discourse. Thus, it is more acceptable to cast the child as being prejudiced than it is to critically consider the origins of the child’s comment. In this way, the dominant Discourse is impervious to criticism as it defines what is acceptable for critique (Gee, 2008), such as a boy’s description of his friend. To what extent then does the tendency to confuse universality with fairness and the

48 deflection of criticism from institutional beliefs constrain teacher selection and deployment of multicultural children’s literature?

Teacher Stances that Function as Censorship

The types of stances that prospective, preservice, and practicing teachers have employed across a range of studies examine how multicultural children’s literature is regarded in teacher education and professional development classes. A brief description of the methodology begins this literature review. It is followed by a discussion about the common stances teachers inhabit and concludes with an examination of the strategies teachers enact to avoid potential risk and discomfort in using multicultural children’s literature in the classroom.

Methodology. The articles that were selected for this review came from two different sources. First, a search for peer-reviewed articles was conducted online via

EBSCO. A small set of related articles was cited on the website after several combinations and permutations with the following search terms: “literature,” “reading,”

“teachers,” and “multicultural.” From this set, only articles that studied the use of multicultural literature with prospective, preservice, and/or practicing teachers were selected. Second, the table of contents and reference sections of a range of books about using multicultural children’s literature in the classroom provided additional studies.

Table 2 provides a brief overview of each of the studies that resulted from the search.

After iterative readings of the studies, I analyzed the data for emerging themes (Glaser &

Strauss, 1967) associated with the positions teachers took in response to the multicultural children’s literature they read in class.

Table 2: Literature Review Studies.

Self Study: Researcher/Instructor: Researcher(s) as Classroom Teacher(s) Prospective or Preservice Teachers • Dudley-Marling (2003). “I’m not from Pakistan” • Apol, Sakuma, Reynolds, & Rop (2003). “When can we make paper cranes?” • Hade, D. (1997). Reading Multiculturally. • Bercaw & Collins (2007). The discussion filter: • Pierce, K. M. (2006). Recognizing and resisting children’s literature in teacher education classroom. change: A teacher’s professional journey. • Escamilla & Nathenson-Mejia (2003). Latino Children’s Literature in Teacher Education School Case Study Researcher(s): Classroom Observer(s) • Herman-Wilmarth (2010). Preservice teacher dialogue after reading LGBT children’s literature. • Barrera (1992). The cultural gap in literature- based literacy instruction. • Howrey & Whelan-Kim (2009). Preservice

Teachers; Multicultural Children's Literature Project. • Fang, Fu, & Lamme, (2003). The trivialization and misuse of multicultural literature • Lowery & Sabis-Burns (2007). Cross-Cultural Connections through Multicultural. • Ketter & Lewis (2001). Multicultural literature in a predominantly white rural community. • McNair (2003). “But The Five Chinese Brothers is one of my favorite books!” Researcher: Professional Development Facilitator(s) • Montero & Robertson (2006). “Teachers can’t • Mathis (2000). Respond to stories with stories: teach what they don’t know” Teachers discuss multicultural children’s literature. • Smith (2002). "Would I use this book?" White, • Schmidt, Armstrong, & Everett. (2007). Teacher female education students examine their beliefs resistance to critical conversation Researcher/Instructor: Prospective Teachers & Students Practicing Teachers • Moore & Ritter (2008). Changing the way • Baskwill (2008). Exploring teacher attitudes preservice teachers interpret and respond to toward multicultural literature through the Arts. literature identities of children. • Graff (2010). Teachers’ discourse about Researcher/Instructor Reflective Study of immigrants in children’s and young adult literature. Teacher Responses to MC Literature • Wollman-Bonilla (1998). Outrageous viewpoints: Researcher/Instructor: Teachers’ criteria for rejecting works of Preservice and Practicing Teachers • Singer & Smith (2003). Changing Understanding of Self and Others.

The stances. In reviewing the literature, patterns of the following types of stances emerged in the teachers’ responses to various works of multicultural children’s literature:

Curriculum First Stance: Multicultural books must fit curriculum objectives.

Universalist Stance: Appropriate multicultural books show that “we are

all the same.”

Politically Correct Stance: There are acceptable and un-acceptable ways of

using language in books for children.

Law Abiding Citizen Stance: Children’s books are expected to reinforce lawful

behavior.

Not In My Backyard Stance: Children need not read stories that are not relevant

to their communities.

Protector of Children: Children should not be exposed to “inappropriate”

topics.

Risk Averting Stance: Avoid the potential for discomfort and controversy

in discussions.

Curriculum First stance. The Curriculum First stance suggests that a teacher must fill a curriculum objective in choosing to include a multicultural children’s book in the classroom. Jipson and Paley’s (1991) findings allude to this stance. Some of the teachers in their study included and excluded books in the classrooms depending on how well the books facilitated the curriculum.

Universalist stance. The Universalist subscribes to the notion that children’s literature that is appropriate to the classroom illustrates the popular platitude that “we might look different on the outside, but we’re all the same on the inside.” From the

Universalist perspective, characters in multicultural children’s literature might look different, but they are really the same and like members of the dominant group on the inside. Sarah, an experienced teacher in Ketter and Lewis’s (2001) study, takes the position that multicultural children’s literature should reinforce universal (American) values. For her, stories that features racially and ethnically diverse families and reinforce

“good values that stable families hold” are preferable (p. 178). Such books are consistent with Sarah’s notion of a “normal” two-parent type family and community, as Sarah avoided stories about families that did not fit these criteria during the study. In this way, it may have been possible for Sarah to highlight the “normal” family structure as a universal theme across cultures.

Ketter and Lewis (2003) likewise report on the Universalist stance of two other teachers, Abby and Denise. Abby accepted and rejected books based on the books’ capacity to lead readers to believe that the characters, whose physical appearances differ,

“are basically just like the ‘we’ who are the ‘norm,’ the ‘we’ who have the right to name those others as different when they do not act as we do or believe what we believe” (p.

178). When Denise uses multicultural children’s literature in the classroom she likes to

“talk about the similarities of people, universality” (p. 179).

Consistent with Denise’s approach of looking for similarities, Shannon (1994) observed that the preservice and practicing teachers in his children’s literature courses

52 drew similarities between the experiences of character Cassie Louise Lightfoot of Faith

Ringgold’s (1991) Tar Beach and their childhood experiences of dances, birthdays, and rooftop camp-outs. This book made the teachers become its characters and recognize cultural similarities and differences.

Moreover, Shannon (1994) sees that books like Tar Beach, to which teachers make personal connections, provide a forum for teachers not only to contemplate their definitions of “normal,” but also to consider how distinguishing people and events as normal or abnormal is more of a statement of “power than biological, historical, or even moral fact” (p. 4). To illustrate this phenomenon, Shannon asked the teachers in his course to identify the default (prototype) values and characteristics of a typical American.

The group generally described an educated, able-bodied, white, male, heterosexual

Protestant from a family with two parents. When Shannon invited the teachers to compare this prototype of a normal American with their personal sense of normality, some were surprised and some were angry to see who is privileged in dominant U.S.

Discourse. Moreover, the students were particularly sober in considering who benefits from being “normal.”

Shannon (1994) sees that teachers’ revelation of privilege is core to reading multiculturally. It may also be core to addressing a key question about the objectives of taking a Universalist stance: “[P]latitudes such as, ‘We may be different on the outside, but on the inside we’re all alike’ may make us feel good, but what are the implications of such a statement?’’ (Kibler, 1996, p. 248). The implications of adhering to this narrative may be that the culture of the dominant group is legitimated while the unique cultures of

53 subordinate groups are marginalized. Such a narrative can lead to “cultural blindness”

(Robin, Lindsey, Lindsey, & Terrell, 2006), which, as a practice of ignoring cultural differences or rendering them inconsequential, can be harmful to children who are not members of the dominant group. Via the Universalist stance, cultural blindness and color blindness could implicitly position members of subordinate groups as being invisible.

Politically correct stance. Related to the Universalist stance, the Politically

Correct stance may be influenced by colorblind ideology as well as a hyper sense of what is or is not “acceptable” or “appropriate” to say in the dominant Discourse. It is not politically correct (“normal”) to draw attention to the fact that social inequities have and continue to exist between the dominant and subordinate cultural groups in the U.S. As

Gee (2008) reminds, criticism of the dominant Discourse might ultimately render a person who takes an alternative perspective as being deviant. In assuming the stance of the Politically Correct Police, teachers might reject select works of children’s literature that could be interpreted as explicitly stereotypical, racist, or offensive, no matter the historical, political, or sociocultural context of the story. How far can teachers and publishers take the politically correct stance?

Mark Twain scholar Alan Gribben of Auburn University in Montgomery

Alabama, who was invited to edit NewSouth Books’ 2009 and 2011 versions of

Huckleberry Finn and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, argues that it can go as far as censoring the word “nigger” from Twain’s text and replacing it with the word “slave”

(Schultz, 2011). After several library talks for general readers about The Adventures of

Tom Sawyer, Gribben encountered local teachers who “would love to teach this novel,

54 and Huckleberry Finn, but we feel we can't do it anymore. In the new classroom, it's really not acceptable" (Schultz, 2011, p. 6). Given teachers’ trepidation to introduce

Twain’s classic in the classroom, Gribben and NewSouth Books created an alternate text to assuage teachers’ anxiety and potentially help teachers avoid addressing critical contextual questions that might critique the dominant Discourse, such as “Why would a child like Huck use such reprehensible language?” (Schultz, 2011, p. 8). (This question would fall along the same lines as asking why the young boy in the 1980’s public service announcement would refer to Jimmy as one of his “Jewish friends.”)

Consistent with the teacher sentiment that Gribben references, McKoy-Lowery and Sabis-Burns (2007) found that the predominantly white preservice teachers in their study were generally uncomfortable in discussing slavery and “anything negative about an unfamiliar culture” (p. 52). Similarly, Ketter and Lewis (2001) observed that some of the practicing teachers in their study “feared that teaching literature focusing on the oppression of racial and ethnic groups in the United States could be seen as inappropriate for school study” (p. 178). In this instance, including books that take an alternative or different perspective from the dominant Discourse is considered deviant; lest we forget that in 2012 Tucson Unified School District banned a set of books that reflect the perspectives of members of subordinate groups such as Latinos.

Via a colorblind ideology, any discussion of inequality could be construed as unnecessary and not politically correct (Wise, 2010). “The habit of ignoring race,” in the words of Toni Morrison (1992), “is understood to be a graceful, even generous, liberal

55 gesture” (pp. 9-10). Thus, this is a gesture that many white teachers may have been socialized to embrace as a means of remaining neutral (Ketter & Lewis, 2001).

Given the colorblind ideology and discomfort associated with the discussion of the historical legacy of racism that is reflective of mainstream American society, perhaps it is not surprising that some teachers believe that it would be politically incorrect to use certain texts. In taking this stance, teachers’ rejection of some works of multicultural children’s literature might signify their membership in the dominant social group. For example, Smith (2002) observed that some teachers’ rejection of The Friendship (Taylor,

1987) was due to the way whites in the story use the word “nigger.” Schmidt, Armstrong, and Everett (2007) found that teachers rejected Nightjohn (Paulsen, 1995) because of the violence and use of the “N” word, and likewise rejected From Slaveship to Freedom

Road (Lester, 1999) due to content. This stance embraces the censorship of Mark

Twain’s classics as a means to sidestep the messiness of discussing the sociocultural contexts of the historical racial inequities that could implicate whites via indirect association with historical oppressors. By attending to what is politically correct in the here and now, it might be possible for teachers to instead reinforce that they do not condone or participate in oppressive activities (Damico & Apol, 2008; Levine-Rasky,

2000; Trainor, 2002; Thompson, 2003).

Law abiding citizen stance. Following the Politically Correct stance of hypersensitivity to what is “correct” and “acceptable” in dominant Discourse, teachers who take the Law Abiding Citizen stance are concerned with the depiction of unlawful behavior in multicultural children’s books. The preservice teachers in Moore and Ritter’s

(2008) study, for instance, were concerned about the classroom use of the picture book,

The Man Who Walked between the Towers (Gerstein 2003). This book chronicles French high wire artist Philippe Petit's 1974 tightrope walk between the World Trade Center towers. Petit and his crew evaded Trade Center guards to perform the stunt. The teachers “wondered if the book ‘sent the right messages’ to the children about doing something illegal and dangerous” (p. 509).

In taking a Law Abiding Citizen stance, preservice teachers in Escamilla and

Nathenson-Mejia’s (2003) study also worried about books that present characters whose behaviors are atypical and are thereby construed as being “deviant.” These teachers rejected Gloria Anzaldúa’s picture book Friends from the Other Side. In this story, the main character, Prietita, helps the boy Joaquin and his mother, who have just crossed the border from Mexico, to evade the U.S. immigration police. In the words of one group of students in the study:

We do not feel comfortable teaching children that it is OK for a person to break the law and provide shelter for two illegal aliens. We don’t like the way the book depicts the border patrol. We don’t think that little children should be taught to be afraid of the

“migra’’ (immigration). (p. 244)

The preservice teachers’ response suggests that for them, it is “normal” for U.S. citizens to abide by the law no matter the situation. As citizens, Prietita’s and the herb woman’s decision to assist Joaquin and his mother was both unlawful and deviant.

Moreover, the group’s label “illegal aliens” clearly positions Joaquin and his mother as foreign invaders and is consistent with the language of the Latino Threat Narrative

57 described in the previous chapter. The preservice teachers’ suggestion that Anzaldua should not foster fear of la migra in her book categories Anzaldúa as being deviant, as well. Lastly, it is interesting to note that in both studies, the teachers were concerned about characters who are outsiders. These outsiders got around the rules to evade authorities and achieve their immediate objectives in the U.S.

Not in my back yard (NIMBY) stance. While some teachers worry about providing children a window through which to see unlawful foreign behavior, others seem primarily concerned with providing mirrors to their students. In the Not in My

Back Yard stance, some prospective, preservice, and practicing teachers take the position that the issues raised in some children’s books do not reflect the experiences of their students or communities. They see little reason to include multicultural books in the classroom that are irrelevant to their school communities.

For instance, one of the teachers in Wollman-Bonilla’s (1998) study suggested that the picture book Fly Away Home (Bunting, 1991), which depicts the experience of a homeless child and his father who live in the airport, might be applicable for “inner-city kids” (p. 290) but not for all children. Another teacher in Schmidt, Armstrong, and

Everett’s (2007) study—whose home state was severely hit by Hurricane Katrina, causing many people to live in airports—argued that she would only use Fly Away Home with her kindergarteners if a student was personally facing homelessness. In other words, her use of the text would be conditionally based on her student population. If she had a student facing homelessness, then she would consider the book to provide a “mirror” for that child.

The same attitude was true of some teachers’ responses to Smoky Night (Bunting,

1994). According to these teachers, because riots are not part of their students’ lived experiences there is no need to read about them (Wollam-Bonilla, 1998). Finally, a teacher purported that because the students in her school community are already accepting of racial diversity, there would be no need to introduce a story such as The

Jacket (Clements, 2003), which examines issues of intolerance (Schmidt, Armstrong, and

Everett, 2007). In short, the teachers’ NIMBY stance in these studies seems to be founded on the beliefs that teachers know every aspect of their students’ lives and that the use of certain types of multicultural literature is only warranted in instances when students’ experiences are reflected in the text. In this instance, certain works of multicultural children’s literature are expected to primarily serve as mirrors rather than windows (Sims Bishop, 1994).

Protector of children stance. The Protector of Children stance adheres to the belief that school is a haven from reality. Wollman-Bonilla (1998) found that many of the practicing and preservice teachers in her methods course believed in censoring children’s literature that “might frighten or corrupt [children] . . . by introducing them to things they don’t or shouldn’t know about” (p. 289). For example, some teachers objected to the classroom use of Fly Away Home (Bunting, 1991) because the book could foster angst and fear of homelessness among children. Some also rejected the novel Bridge to

Terabithia (Patterson, 1977) for similar reasons, suggesting that it was inappropriate to have children consider death. Schmidt, Armstrong, and Everett (2007) also found in their work with preservice and practicing teachers that some teachers believed in protecting

59 students’ “innocence” (p. 52) by avoiding books that expose children to the real world.

Some teachers in this study also rejected Fly Away Home (Bunting, 1991) because the characters’ homelessness was not resolved by the end of the story and could disturb children.

In working with preservice teachers, Moore and Ritter (2007) found that like

Pierce (2006), who as a young teacher claimed “[I am] protecting my young charges from the ‘weight of the world’ and adult issues and responsibilities” (p. 428), some of their preservice teachers also wanted to protect children from real world issues by avoiding certain books. Congruently, the preservice teachers in Apol, Sakuma, Reyonlds, and

Rop’s (2003) study wanted to protect children from the sadness that Sadako (Coerr,

1993) and other WWII stories about Japan could elicit. In sum, the urge to protect children by limiting or censoring certain books or portions of text appears to be prevalent among some preservice and practicing teachers.

Risk averting stances. This next section is dedicated to the many ways that prospective, preservice, and practicing teachers position themselves to avert risk, controversy, and discomfort around the prospect of using multicultural children’s literature in the classroom. Enciso (2001) perfectly captures the teachers’ voices in the following account of an opening conversation in her multicultural children’s literature course:

Students point out that this [using multicultural children’s literature in the

classroom] is going to be hard. Uhm hmm. There’s censorship. Hum hmm.

There are angry parents. Uhm hmm. There are principals who will make you

leave the school. Uhm hmm. Maybe a special letter to parents would help, that

warns them of the planned breach of mainstream history and stereotypical

images. Maybe that would work. Hmm. Other idea? Okay. We’d better stick

with Little House on the Prairie. No. No. Wait a minute. But even if we read

these stories, there will still be racism and oppression. So, why bother? . . . [And]

what if the kids have a fight that is actually sparked by a book or discussion? And

what if a kid says something that is really racist or homophobic? And another

thing. Not everyone is like the kids in those books. What if the class gets the idea

that all Mexican families are migrants? (p. 138)

Glimpses of conversations like this were common to many of the studies in this literature review. By far the most common theme across the studies, prospective, preservice, and practicing teachers expressed discomfort around the prospects of critically reading and/or discussing certain multicultural children’s literature with students in the classroom (Apol, Sakuma, Reyonlds, & Rop, 2003; Escamilla &

Nathenson-Meja, 2003; Herman-Wilmarth, 2010; Ketter & Lewis, 2001; Lowry & Sabis-

Burns, 2007; Montero & Robertson, 2006; Schmidt, Armstrong, & Everett, 2007; Moore

& Ritter, 2007; Smith, 2002; Wollman-Bollina, 1998). Some researchers observed that teachers enacted different strategies to evade uncomfortable situations when reading and discussing children’s literature. These included emphasizing universal themes; projecting attitudes and beliefs onto others; practicing familiar reader response patterns; and rejecting literature due to limited content knowledge and experience.

Emphasizing universal themes. Preservice teachers in three studies (Apol,

Sakuma, Reyonlds, & Rop, 2003; Escamilla & Nathenson-Meja, 2007; Ketter & Lewis,

2001) passed over difficult conversations about the issues of diversity and social injustice in certain books by focusing on universal themes, no matter how flawed. For example, in response to the heartbreaking picture book about the way Japanese zookeepers were forced to starve their elephants to death during WWII in Faithful Elephants: A True Story of Animals, People, and War (Tsuchiya, 1988), some preservice teachers focused on the

“universal” experience of visiting a zoo and suggested that children could draw pictures of their favorite zoo animals as a follow-up activity. In this same study, preservice teachers overlooked the WWII bombing of Japan and the historical inaccuracies of the text to embrace the universal themes of morality and world peace in Sadako (Coerr,

1993). In this way, teachers could accommodate multicultural children’s literature in the curriculum sans the responsibility of enacting multicultural education pedagogy.

As a counterpoint to embracing universal themes to skirt tough conversations,

Smith (2002) found that for some preservice teachers, recognizing universal themes in a story helped them to engage in the text. This finding is consistent with Creighton’s

(1997) observation that “it may be possible to allow for a certain degree of universality within the parameters of critical literacy” (p. 431). She sees that in some instances, universal themes can help children to see commonalities across groups of people. For instance, this was the desired effect that the two parents in Ketter and Lewis’ (2001) study wanted by introducing students to works of multicultural children’s literature that shows African American characters not as victims, but as individuals who universally

62 hold as much agency, power, respect, creativity, intelligence, and opportunities in life as white characters. In other situations, universal themes could also help to increase readers’ sensitivity to stories about specific cultural and/or gender groups. As an example of this latter result, Hermann-Wilmarth (2010) concluded that in future lessons, she would like to help teachers “relate the situations that they read about [in LGBTQ themed children’s literature] to their own life experiences” (p. 197).

Practicing familiar reader response patterns. As discussed earlier, based on their own K-12 educational experiences, some teachers are familiar with an over-simplified version of reader response pedagogy. For many, personal connection with the text is primary. It seems natural to invite students to share their personal responses to the text and to put away the text once each child has shared. Thus, they may never broach issues that are not raised by the students. Moreover, by viewing reading as an entirely personal issue, rather than a social practice (Freebody & Luke, 1997), teachers who do not personally relate to some characters or stories are also likely to avoid certain multicultural texts (Herman-Wilmarth, 2010; Singer & Smith, 2003). For example,

Singer and Smith (2003) found that while the teachers who made a personal connection with the novel From the Notebooks of Melanin Sun (Woodson, 1995) demonstrated a deeper engagement, the teachers who did not connect with the novel tended to distance themselves from the topics of race and/or sexual orientation. Consequently, these scholars revised their teaching practices and became more explicit in directing students to consider their responses to the topics of diversity in the text.

Projecting attitudes onto parents, administrators, and students. As a means of avoiding the use of certain multicultural books altogether, it is not uncommon for some teachers to project onto parents or administrators the notion that “they would never let me get away with reading a book like this in my class!” For example, some preservice teachers believed that they couldn’t use a book such as The Friendship (Taylor, 1987) because parents would object to the way whites in the story use the word “nigger”

(Smith, 2002). Similarly, after reading Nightjohn (Paulsen, 1995), a teacher in Schmidt,

Armstrong, and Everett’s (2007) study argued, “Parents in my district would never approve of this book. There's too much violence and the 'N' word is used throughout the book” (p. 52). Also projecting attitudes onto parents after reading From Slaveship to

Freedom Road (Lester, 1999), a teacher worried, “there might be some miscommunication with parents, and they would get mad if I read a book like that”

(Schmidt, Armstrong, & Everett, 2007, p. 52). Given that some teachers fear repercussions from their book selections (Ketter & Lewis, 2001; Wollman-Bonilla,

1998), choosing to reject a text could help to avoid problems.

Barrera (1992) observed another type of projection in her case study about the ways teachers and administrators at a diverse elementary school in the Southwest incorporate multiculturalism in their model language arts program. She observed that some teachers projected ambivalence and indifference onto their students. Not only did they assume that some of the children’s cultures lacked literary traditions, they also presumed that culturally relevant books were not available. Barrera reports that their

64 projections led to the omission of multiethnic texts in the curriculum at some grade levels.

Rejecting literature due to limited content knowledge and experience. This last set of rationales for censorship regard teachers’ intellectual and pedagogical confidence.

Limited content knowledge. Botelho and Rudman (2009) observe that several scholars discuss the ways some teachers sidestep multicultural children’s literature

“because they are unprepared and lack the background and knowledge to feel comfortable engaging in teaching these texts (Cooper and Floyd, 2002; Davis, Brown,

Liedel-Rice, and Soeder, 2005; Harris and Willis, 2003; Hinton-Johnson, 2002; Jenkins,

1999)” (p. 265). In this review of the literature, while there is a wide range of reasons that teachers could feel uncomfortable in reading and talking about multicultural children’s literature, two of those reasons are discussed here. First, in Apol, Sakuma,

Reyonlds, & Rop’s (2003) study, teachers expressed trepidation around critiquing multicultural historical fiction and nonfiction texts because they lacked the historical background knowledge about the subject matter of the text. In discussing a text set of children’s books regarding Japan during WWII, the preservice teachers shared that they had little background knowledge about the circumstances surrounding the bombing of

Japan. Consequently, they felt unqualified to discuss the historical context of the books in the text set. Similarly, Smith (2002) observed that the preservice teachers in her class felt at a loss in discussing the context of Christopher Columbus’s “discovery” of America.

Most of these teachers understood a Eurocentric version of history and had little or no

65 knowledge of alternative perspectives such as those of the Taino people in the book

Morning Girl (Dorris, 1999). Apol, Sakuma, Reyonlds, and Rop’s (2003) and Smith’s

(2002) observations substantiate Giroux and McLaren’s (1996) argument that the study of history “should play a more expansive role in teacher education programs” (p. 320).

In addition to feeling unqualified to discuss the historical context of some books, teachers also felt uneasy about examining the cultural context of books. Escamilla and

Nathenson-Meja (2003) observed this problem as teachers avoided discussing the cultural aspects of Latino children’s books. They resolved that in the future, they would help preservice teachers learn about Mexican and Mexican-American culture in tandem with reading corresponding works of multicultural children’s literature. Montero and

Robertson (2006), in their study using global children’s literature with teachers, report that over the course of their graduate level class, “it became obvious that one of the barriers to using books that fall outside of the mainstream was knowledge (or lack thereof) about a country, its language(s) and culture(s) as represented in the books” (p.

31). While this lack of knowledge inhibited some teachers from using certain global literature in their classrooms, Montero and Robertson found that the teachers were interested in learning more about world cultures. They saw that as the teacher increased their cultural knowledge, they started to feel more comfortable using the literature in their classrooms. Willis and Harris’s (1997) argument that prospective teachers need to have comprehensive cultural studies courses as part of their college educations is particularly relevant to these findings.

Limited experience. Reflecting on her avoidance of certain topics as an elementary school teacher, Pierce (2006) also provides insight into the experiences of some teachers: “I was hiding from my own inexperience and discomfort and my unwillingness to make belief-level changes in my work. I was afraid of where this journey might take me and what it might require of me as a teacher” (p. 428). Like

Pierce, the prospective, preservice, and practicing teacher’s limited experiences in reading critically (Apol, Sakuma, Reynolds, & Rop, 2003; Harris, 1993; Schmidt,

Armstrong, & Everett, 2007), in talking about their own cultures (Lowry & Sabis-Burns,

2007), and in deconstructing their own assumptions and beliefs (Fang, Fu, & Lamme,

2003; Ketter & Lewis, 2001) contributed to some teachers’ discomfort in discussing the themes raised in some multicultural texts such as cultural diversity, racism, sexism, and social inequality. Consequently, the teachers avoid such texts and conversations. Some are equally fearful that using books, which confront dominant ideologies about race, gender, and culture could cause controversy and alarm parents (Ketter & Lewis, 2001;

Schmidt, Armstrong, & Everett, 2007; Smith, 2002). Finally, like Pierce (2006), the teachers’ inexperience and incomplete knowledge about how to read and discuss multicultural literature with children increased the teachers’ apprehension, too (Escamilla

& Nathenson-Meja, 2003; Ketter & Lewis, 2001; Montero & Robertson, 2006; Smith,

2002).

Summary

Talking about race, culture, gender, religion, and social class can be daunting to even the most thoughtful teachers. Consequently, there are several strategies teachers

67 employ, consciously or unconsciously, to avoid uncomfortable discussions. Some of those strategies include: focusing on holidays, heroes, foods, and crafts; taking an efferent reading stance; emphasizing universal themes; projecting attitudes and beliefs onto others; practicing familiar reader response patterns; and rejecting literature due to limited content knowledge and experience.

While teachers can only operate within the discourses (Gee, 1996) that are available to them (Schmidt, Armstrong, & Everett, 2007), they are often the “victims of systems that require they know things that are not accessible through their experiences or their teacher preparation” (Ketter & Lewis, 2001, p. 180). This literature review has examined the positions prospective, practicing, and preservice teachers take up in response to multicultural children’s literature and the ways in which teachers avoid risk, controversy, and discomfort. Although there are many reasons why teachers may feel uncomfortable about using certain multicultural children’s literature, it is rarely because they simply do not like the text. Rather, a lack of social, historical, and cultural knowledge, confidence, self-reflection, and/or know-how seems to be at the root of much teacher’s discomfort.

In closing, Mingshui Cai (2009) observes that regardless of the pedagogical label,

“in either the implementation of multicultural education or the reading of multicultural literature, we may focus on diversity only and do not talk about power structures and struggles. The problem lies in our practice” (p. 281). This chapter has demonstrated teachers can embrace multicultural children’s literature as a means of fostering diversity awareness while simultaneously avoiding the discussion of power structures and

68 struggles and the critique of dominant Discourse. The next chapter considers the ways in which enacting critical literacy practices with prospective, preservice, and practicing teachers could facilitate a shift in stance.

Critical Literacy and Teachers

This section of Chapter Two examines how teacher educators have used critical literacy practices to support teachers in reading children’s literature with a critical lens.

The section begins with a rationale for reading critically. Then, it establishes a conceptual framework and methodology for the literature review. Next, it synthesizes the data on using multicultural children’s literature in teacher education and professional development programs and describes two major themes across the studies: cultivating critical readers and nurturing culturally responsive teachers. Given the paucity of data on teachers’ engagement with Latino children’s literature, this section reviews literature on prospective, preservice, and practicing teachers’ engagement with multicultural children’s literature in the context of professional development, children’s literature, or

English/Language Arts methods courses in which the researchers were also the instructors.

Rationale for Critical Literacy

Some teachers assume ideological positions that lead to the censorship and exclusion of certain works of multicultural children’s literature in the classroom. Some teachers also take the position that children’s literature is as a tool for teaching children

69 about the ways of being in the world. In wholly accepting works of children’s literature as models of culture, teachers are not likely to approach reading as a critical process

(Friere & Macedo, 1996; Wollam-Bonilla, 1998). This is problematic because, as mentioned in the previous chapter, children’s literature is not ideologically neutral. It is filled with coercive socializing messages that can reinforce a sense of normality to accepting racist, classist, sexist, and ageist biases of dominant Discourse without question

(Apol, 1998; Hollindale, 1988; Nodelman, 2008; Stephens, 1992).

Hade (1997) gives body to this phenomenon in his observation of a classroom that is regarded as being progressive, student-centered, and reading-rich:

[C]hildren “read” the social context in which they interpret literature and produce

readings according to what they believe their teacher wants in that particular

situation. The richness of the readings in the classroom appeared to be influenced

heavily by the kinds of readings the teacher values. Interpretation is a cultural

product. If children do not read in a certain way, is it not because they do not read

that way naturally, it is because they are not taught how to read that way (Hunt,

1991). To view what children do with books as natural is to allow the influence

of culture and the manner in which certain signs are interpreted to go

unchallenged. This is imposition by omission. (p. 238)

Hade’s description suggests that no matter whether a classroom is progressive and literature rich, children are socialized to read, respond to, and interpret literature in the way that their teacher believes is “natural.” In some cases, reading “naturally” means reading without question, such that the Discourse of the text is neither critiqued nor

70 challenged. For some teachers, challenging the author’s figured story world is atypical behavior and thus unnatural.

On the other hand, teachers who are oriented toward seeing children’s texts as cultural artifacts, which are underpinned by societal ideologies about culture, race, class, and gender, are more liable to approach reading as a critical process (Friere & Macedo,

1996; Luke & Freebody, 1997). In taking a critical approach to reading, children's literature is not regarded as a socializing tool, but rather as a vehicle for engaging students in critical discussions of complex issues such as gender, race, and social class.

Via a critical approach, the reading process could also support the objective of multicultural education (Botelho & Rudman, 2009) by engaging readers in talking back to the text (Enciso, 1997) and reading against the grain to identify the limitations of authors’ visions (Bartholomae & Petrosky, 2003). Such an approach engages both teachers and students in challenging dominant figured worlds.

Conceptual Framework

Multicultural children’s literature has been used in teacher education and professional development programs to support prospective, preservice, and practicing teachers in becoming multicultural educators who are both critical literacy practitioners and culturally competent/responsive teachers (Apol, Sakuma, Reyonlds, & Rop, 2003;

Baskwill, 2008; Bercaw & Collins, 2007; Dudley-Marling, 2003; Escamilla &

Nathenson-Meja, 2003; Graff, 2010; Hade, 1997; Herman-Wilmarth, 2010; Howrey &

Whelan-Kim, 2010; Ketter & Lewis, 2001; Lowry & Sabis-Burns, 2007; Mathis, 2001;

McNair, 2003; Montero & Robertson, 2006; Schmidt, Armstrong, & Everett, 2007;

Singer & Smith, 2003; Smith, 2002; Wollman-Bollina, 1998). As Hade (1997) puts it,

“Multiculturalism is about reform. . . . We need to teach reading accordingly.

Challenging assumptions about race, class, and gender must be at the core of multicultural education; our reading needs to do the same” (p. 252). As a reform movement, multicultural education does not simply address curricular revisions. It advocates for/is concerned with a systemic, institutional shift in education that guarantees equal opportunities for learning to all students regardless of race, gender, culture, social class, or language (Banks, 2010).

With this in mind, critical literacy practitioners/critical readers, as characterized by Lewison, Flint, and Van Sluys (2002), examine how texts position readers and emphasize some voices but not others; appreciate multiple perspectives and counternarratives; critique how language can be employed to maintain or destabilize power structures and can likewise be interpreted as a cultural resource; and confront and cross borders to understand others. Critical literacy advocates like McLaughlin and

DeVoogd (2004) even offer an overview for a two-phase pedagogical approach to fostering a critical reading stance among novice readers: First, ensure that students posses the necessary social, cultural, and/or historical contextual knowledge for critically reading a specific text; Second, scaffold students’ learning via a guided practice sequence such as (a) describe what it means to be a critical reader; (b) demonstrate critical reading through a combined read-aloud/think-aloud; (c) guide student practice in asking critical questions such as “Whose voices are amplified and whose are marginalized or missing?”; (d) establish time for students to practice independently; and

(e) regroup to reflect on the process. An approach like this could be employed with teachers in a university course and likewise serve as a model for working with children.

Culturally competent/responsive teachers, as described by Ladson-Billings (2001) and Villegas and Lucas (2002) understand the role of culture in education, learn about their students’ lives and communities, affirm students’ diverse background and communities as cultural resources, enact pedagogy that builds on students’ local and global culture and experiences, and assume responsibility for making schools more accommodating of every child. Taken together, teachers who are both critical readers as well as culturally responsive educators enact critical multicultural analysis of children’s literature (Botelho & Rudman, 2009).

According to Botelho and Rudman, critical multicultural analysis of children’s literature “acknowledges that all literature is a historical and cultural product and reveals how the power relations of class, race, and gender work together in text and image, and by extension, in society” (p.1) and “equips the reader with strategies to unmask dominant ideologies, integrate what they know about themselves with what they learn about others, and translate their reading and thinking into social action” (p. 9). The studies in this literature review investigate how teachers respond to and engage with this paradigm and consider the implications for teacher preparation and professional development programs.

Methodology

The articles that were selected for this review came from two different sources.

First, a search for peer-reviewed articles was conducted online via EBSCO. A small set of related articles was cited on the website after several combinations and permutations

73 with the following search terms: “literature,” “reading,” “teachers,” and “multicultural.”

From this set, only articles that studied the use of multicultural literature with prospective, preservice, and/or practicing teachers were selected. Second, the table of contents and reference sections of a range of books about using multicultural children’s literature in the classroom provided additional studies. Table 3 provides a brief overview of each of the studies that resulted from the search. After iterative readings of the studies,

I analyzed the data for emerging themes (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Two categories of data resulted: cultivating critical readers and nurturing culturally responsive teachers.

Table 3. Sources for Literature Review. Self Study: Researcher(s) as Classroom Researcher/Instructor: Prospective or Teacher(s) Preservice Teachers • Dudley-Marling (2003). “I’m not from Pakistan” • Apol, Sakuma, Reynolds, & Rop (2003). “When • Hade, D. (1997). Reading Multiculturally. can we make paper cranes?”

• Pierce, K. M. (2006). Recognizing and resisting • Bercaw & Collins (2007). The discussion filter: change: A teacher’s professional journey. children’s literature in teacher education classroom.

School Case Study • Escamilla & Nathenson-Mejia (2003). Latino Researcher(s): Classroom Observer(s) Children’s Literature in Teacher Education • Barrera (1992). The cultural gap in literature- based literacy instruction. • Herman-Wilmarth (2010). Preservice teacher dialogue after reading LGBT children’s literature. • Fang, Fu, & Lamme, (2003). The trivialization and • Howrey & Whelan-Kim (2009). Preservice misuse of multicultural literature Teachers; Multicultural Children's Literature Project.

• Ketter & Lewis (2001). Multicultural literature in a • Lowery & Sabis-Burns (2007). Cross-Cultural predominantly white rural community. Connections through Multicultural.

Researcher: Professional Development • McNair (2003). “But The Five Chinese Brothers is Facilitator(s) one of my favorite books!” • Mathis (2000). Respond to stories with stories: Teachers discuss multicultural children’s literature. • Montero & Robertson (2006). “Teachers can’t teach what they don’t know” • Schmidt, Armstrong, & Everett. (2007). Teacher resistance to critical conversation. • Smith (2002). "Would I use this book?" White, female education students examine their beliefs Prospective Teachers & Students • Moore & Ritter (2008). Changing the way Researcher/Instructor: Practicing Teachers preservice teachers interpret and respond to • Baskwill (2008). Exploring teacher attitudes literature identities of children. toward multicultural literature through the Arts.

Researcher/Instructor Reflective Study of • Graff (2010). Teachers’ discourse about Teacher Responses to MC Literature immigrants in children’s and young adult literature. • Wollman-Bonilla (1998). Outrageous viewpoints: Teachers’ criteria for rejecting works of Researcher/Instructor: Preservice and Practicing Teachers • Singer & Smith (2003). Changing Understanding of Self and Others.

Discussion A: Cultivating Critical Readers who are Teachers

In several of the studies in this review, researchers advocate that prospective, preservice, and practicing teachers learn and exercise critical literacy practices in order to facilitate multicultural pedagogy via the use of multicultural children’s literature in the

75 classroom (Apol, Sakuma, Reyonlds, & Rop, 2003; Baskwill, 2008; Fu, Fang, & Lamme,

2003; Graff, 2010; Hade, 1997; Lowry & Sabis-Burns, 2007; Mathis, 2001; Schmidt,

Armstrong, & Everett, 2007; Singer & Smith, 2003; Smith, 2002). According to

McLaughlin and DeVoogd (2004), in applying a critical lens to text, readers access their existing knowledge to make sense of the ways their ideas and the ideas of the text may or may not relate. In doing so, they critique the text and consider alternate perspectives to the author’s assumptions. Through the critical lens, readers can begin to uncover who does and does not have power in the text and who benefits and who is disadvantaged in reading the text.

Teachers as critical readers. For students, the teacher’s job is to help them to cultivate a “meta-awareness and meta-language” (Comber, 2001, p. 1) to help them interrogate not only texts, but also social issues of school and life. More specifically, the teacher’s role originates from “personal understanding and use of critical literacy and extends to teaching students about critical literacy, modeling reading from a critical stance in everyday teaching and learning experiences, and providing access to a variety of texts that represent critical literacy” (McLaughlin & DeVoogd, 2004, p. 55). In short, teachers who engage in the process of assimilating critical literacy practices and pedagogies and begin to accommodate alternate viewpoints into their professional discourse (Gee, 1996) are equipped to teach their students to become critical readers

(Lowry & Sabis-Burns, 2007). Thus, the first step in helping children to cultivate critical literacy practices is to support teachers in becoming critical readers (Apol, Sakuma,

Reyonlds, & Rop, 2003). Unfortunately, explicit instruction on how to read children’s

76 and young adult literature through a critical lens is not always a part of teacher preparation courses (Harris, 1993). In fact, a theme that emerged in this review is that teacher educators need to recognize that many prospective, preservice, and practicing teachers have limited experience in reading critically (Apol, Sakuma, Reynolds, & Rop,

2003; Ketter & Lewis, 2001; Schmidt, Armstrong, & Everett, 2007).

Across the studies, however, various researchers support teachers in learning to read critically through a variety of pedagogies for pre-and post-reading activities (Apol,

Sakuma, Reyonlds, & Rop, 2003). These include: transmediation events in which teachers “transfer” meaning from one medium to another such as print to visual arts

(Baskwill, 2008) or print to drama (Graff, 2010); scholarly readings (Baskwill, 2008;

Graff, 2010; Lowry & Sabis-Burns, 2007; Mathis, 2001; Schmidt, Armstrong, & Everett,

2007; Singer & Smith, 2003; Smith, 2002); and written reflection and dialogic response activities (Apol, Sakuma, Reyonlds, & Rop, 2003; Baskwill, 2008; Bercaw & Collins,

2007; Escamilla & Nathenson-Meja, 2003; Graff, 2010; Herman-Wilmarth, 2010; Lowry

& Sabis-Burns, 2007; Mathis, 2001; Montero & Robertson, 2006; Schmidt, Armstrong,

& Everett, 2007; Singer & Smith, 2003; Smith, 2002). What follows is a discussion about the scholarly readings and the types of questions that teacher education instructors used to support dialogic response activities.

Scholarly readings. Among the researchers who conducted professional development or instructed children’s literature and/or methods courses, some incorporated into their course curricula scholarly articles about critical literacy and/or multiculturalism to support the teachers in becoming critical readers. For example,

Mathis (2001) paired “Making Classroom Instruction Culturally Pluralistic” (Branch,

Goodwin, & Gualtieri, 1993) with the novel Seedfolk (Fleischman, 1997). Hermann-

Wilmarth (2010) paired “Dangerous Discourses: Using controversial books to support engagement, diversity, and democracy” (Lewison, Leland, Flint, & Möller, 2002) with three book options for her class to read The Misfits (Howe, 2001), Holly’s Secret

(Garden, 2000), and The House You Pass on the Way (Woodson, 1997). Apol, Sakuma,

Reynolds, and Rop (2003), on the other hand, provided students socio-historical resources about WWII to inform their reading of the novel Sadako (Coerr, 1993). The instructor/researchers invited the teachers to consider the relationship between the children’s literature and the articles, in addition to sharing their personal responses to the books. In many instances, the scholarly articles provided alternative perspectives to the teachers’ views and offered counterpoints to their discussions (Montero & Robertson,

2006; Smith, 2002).

Critical questions. Nearly all of the instructor/researchers facilitated written reflection and dialogic response activities in their courses (Apol, Sakuma, Reyonlds, &

Rop, 2003; Baskwill, 2008; Escamilla & Nathenson-Meja, 2003; Lowry & Sabis-Burns,

2007; Mathis, 2001; Montero & Robertson, 2006). For example, to help teachers think about their personal responses to each of the multicultural children’s books they read for class, Escamilla & Nathenson-Meja (2003) asked two general questions: “What has this book led you to think about? Have you had any experiences similar to this? In what way?” (p. 242). To support teachers in considering their curricular and pedagogical perspectives, other instructor/researchers inquired: “Would you use this multicultural

78 children’s book in your classroom? Why or why not?” “How would you use this book in your classroom to teach about culture or diversity?” (Apol, Sakuma, Reyonlds, & Rop,

2003; Escamilla & Nathenson-Meja, 2003; Lowry & Sabis-Burns, 2007). To engage teachers in the practice of critical reading, the instructor/researchers required the teachers to mull over questions like: “How are people who are not members of the mainstream culture represented in the text?” (Lowry & Sabis-Burns, 2007). “Who is authorized to write about or from within a cultural experience?” (Montero & Robertson, 2006).

Finally, prompting teachers to have a go at critical narrative analysis (see Table 4, below), Baskwill (2008) asked teachers to ponder who the intended audience and the implied reader (Iser, 1978; Stephens, 1992) are for the texts. Merging the concepts of intended audience and implied reader, teachers might consider who the ideal reader

(Aldama, 2009) is. Congruently, Apol, Sakuma, Reyonlds, and Rop, (2003) encouraged teachers to consider the ways peritext (Aldama, 2009) influences readers. With regard to multicultural historical fiction, they asked, what kind of claims does the text or the book jacket, introduction, and afterward (peritext) make to substantiate the “truthfulness” of the historical context of the story? See Table 4.

Table 4. Definitions of Ideal Reader, Peritexts, and Implied Author. An ideal reader is: Peritexts are mostly marketing tools, An image of the ideal recipient of the text, including cover art and book jackets, blurbs, this reader is an assumed addressee who text descriptions, endorsements, reviews, understands the text optimally, that is, in a photos, and even sales displays. They way that fully matches its structure and its “establish initial reader contracts and cues aesthetics and other values and norms… that trigger in the reader’s mind important [T]he ideal reader takes on the beliefs and scripts – comic or tragic, for instance – that we values that the narrator ascribes to him or anticipate encountering once inside the story her, and in most cases this reader responds proper” (Aldama, 2009, p. 22). Peritexts can to the characters and events as if they were help consumers feel confident that they will real (Aldama, 2009, p. 27). not be disappointed in purchasing more of what they know and enjoy (Hale, 2002).

The implied author is “inferred from the text as a whole and is taken to be accountable for the selection, distribution, and combination of all of its ingredients… [S/he] is the image of the author constructed by the reader” (Aldama, 2009, p.26). The implied author and the ideal reader work in tandem to propagate and reinforce the ideologies, which are embraced by the actual author and may be reflected in hegemonic values and epistemologies.

General questions like those listed above provide a springboard for teachers to begin to critically evaluate and delve into the text. As Hermann-Wilmarth (2010) surmised from her study, however, explicit questions could help engage teachers further.

Her conclusion is consistent with Simpson’s (2006) observation that instructors need to craft questions founded on the understandings they would like children to cultivate.

Simpson argues that she should prepare explicit questions and use scenarios and/or quotes from the texts to help preservice teachers see potential connections between the characters in the text and people in their lives; require small groups to reflect on and generate a list of the perspectives that were presented in their groups; and model how to listen and respond to differing viewpoints in a conversation. None of the instructors/researchers in this review report on the use of explicit questions in their studies.

Written, visual, and dialogic response. This section of the discussion considers the types of written, visual, and dialogic responses that were employed by the researchers.

Written and visual response. Each of the instructor/researchers created space in her/his curriculum for teachers to author written responses to assigned texts prior to each class session as a means of organizing their thoughts and critically processing their ideas in preparation for in-class discussions. After in-class discussions, a few of the instructor/researchers likewise asked teachers to reflect on their conversations, account for the different perspectives that were voiced in their group, and/or to describe how their thinking may have changed as a result of the discussions (Lowry & Sabis-Burns, 2007;

Montero & Robertson, 2006; Smith, 2002). Likewise, Baskwill (2008), who welcomed teachers to create visual aesthetic responses to the text, used the teachers’ artwork as tools for initiating discussion. Her approach is consistent with Rosenblatt’s (1985) observation, “Criticism should make the aesthetic transaction the starting point of a further transactional relationship between reader/critic and text—or between reader/historian and text, or reader/semiotician and text” (p. 105). In other words, teacher’s personal responses and understanding of the text provide a starting point for developing critical awareness (McLaughlin & DeVoogd, 2004).

Dialogic response. In conjunction with the teachers’ written responses, all of the instructors/researchers provided for in-class, open and guided dialogues in the form of literature response groups and small and large group discussions (Apol, Sakuma,

Reyonlds, & Rop, 2003; Baskwill, 2008; Bercaw & Collins, 2007; Escamilla &

Nathenson-Meja, 2003; Graff, 2010; Herman-Wilmarth, 2010; Lowry & Sabis-Burns,

2007; Mathis, 2001; Montero & Robertson, 2006; Schmidt, Armstrong, & Everett, 2007;

Singer & Smith, 2003; Smith, 2002). Discussions provided the forum for examining issues of injustice, racism, privilege, and power. In multicultural education, conversing about the text is as important as the text (Rice, 2005), because dialogue is “an initial action toward critical examination of self and society and can lead to further action toward challenging existing undemocratic social injustices” (Bercaw & Collins, 2007, p.

31). For some of the researchers, the small group discussion model affords a

“nonauthoritarian classroom in which students are invited to create knowledge by sharing their own perspectives and feelings” (Singer & Smith, 2003, p. 19) and a semi-private space for students to express opinions that might otherwise be filtered in the presence of the instructor (Bercaw & Collins; Smith, 2002). Moreover, small group discussions provide the chance for teachers to practice talking about issues of injustice and cultural difference so that such conversations would not feel as risky in their own classrooms

(Herman-Wilmarth, 2010).

Personal responses in the discussion groups. Among the college course/professional development studies, there were two sets of researchers who established literature response groups specifically for discussing the multicultural children’s literature and not scholarly readings (Escamilla & Nathenson-Meja, 2003;

Schmidt, Armstrong, & Everett, 2007). In describing the structure of the literature response group conversations, Schmidt, Armstrong, and Everett (2007) recall,

“discussions often began with quick aesthetic responses to the literature and moved

82 almost immediately to ways they could use the book in their classrooms” (p. 51). One reason for this quick transition from personal response to the discussion of classroom usage is that teachers are in the habit of considering practical matters that could assist them in preparing for their daily engagements with students (Nieto, 2007). In these literature response groups, teachers did not appear to move beyond the level of sharing personal responses. Escamilla and Nathenson-Meja (2003) were frustrated by this outcome and reflected that they would not apply the same open-ended strategy in future classes. Alternately, Schmidt, Armstrong, and Everett (2007), who critically analyze the underpinnings of teachers’ personal responses and find that they distanced teachers from the issues of diversity and social injustice in multicultural texts, recognize that it takes time to cultivate a change in attitudes. For them, discussion provides a starting point.

Although Apol, Sakuma, Reynolds, and Rop (2003) provided scholarly text that explicitly challenged the historic context and validity of Sadako (Coerr, 1993), they also found that the majority of pre-service teachers in their study did not move beyond personal response during small group discussions. These scholars suggest that one of the several reasons that the preservice teachers, who were generally between the ages of 18 –

22, resisted entering into deeper discussions about the conflict between the scholarly text and the novel was that the preservice teachers were likely more familiar with personal response pedagogy as an over-simplified version of reader response from their own K-12 educations in the late 1980s and 1990s. They may have been neither familiar nor comfortable with engaging in critical reading and inquiry strategies. Similarly, Hermann-

Wilmarth (2010) found that despite the scholarly text she provided, in one of the five

83 small group discussions in her children’s literature class, the conversation was dominated not only by two preservice teachers’ personal responses, but also their personal text, the

Bible. Reflecting on this phenomenon of stagnation, Smith (2002) concludes, "When personal experiences are limited and reflect the viewpoint that is sanctioned as the norm, as is the case with many White preservice teachers, the connections made to literature and the ability to reflect also will be limited" (p. 58).

Discussion group dynamics. Beyond personal response, other factors characterized the discussions in some studies. For example, teachers’ sense of comfort influenced some participants. Natalie, a teacher in Bercaw and Collin’s (2007) study, argued that it was “easier to sit back and let the status quo exist. . . . I would have loved to have . . . hashed them [books] out with somebody. I didn’t . . . [know] anyone well enough to hash it out . . . let your guard down” (p. 27). She didn’t trust that it was worthwhile to express her opinion and challenge her peers about the text or topics of diversity and injustice. Along this same line, Trina, a teacher in Graff’s (2010) study, confided that while she was comfortable to share anything with Graff, for class discussions she “just had to prepare for the worst and get ready to defend what I believe”

(p. 119). According to Graff, Trina’s discussion participation was limited because of “the defensive place she felt she needed to occupy in class” (p. 119) as a person with conservative views. Schmidt, Armstrong, and Everett’s (2007) observation that teachers take more risks in discussion when they feel at ease rings true with Natalie’s and Trina’s testimonies.

Scholarly reflections on discussions. In considering the implications of their studies, some scholars warn that without discussion, “taboo” topics of diversity and injustice remain taboo (Escamilla & Nathenson-Meja, 2003; Schmidt, Armstrong, &

Everett, 2007; Singer & Smith, 2003). Thus, more opportunities for discussion are needed to provide a forum to engage in critical reading, self-reflection, and understanding of other’s viewpoints (Bercaw & Collins, 2007), to interrogate teachers’ views about multicultural texts in order to avoid teachers’ unnecessary censorship of texts (Wollman-

Bonilla, 1998), to participate in broader discussions about multicultural education and diversity (Dudley-Marling, 2003), and to support teachers in learning and talking about multicultural books in order to develop a critical literacy pedagogy (Mathis, 2001).

Alternatively, some scholars also suggest that prospective, preservice, and practicing teachers be exposed to texts and/or in-person experiences, which demonstrate how children are capable of applying a critical reading lens to attend to the sociocultural values embedded in a story (Apol, Sakuma, Reyonlds, & Rop, 2003; Smith, 2002;

Wollman-Bonilla, 1998). In this approach, the children model for the teachers how to read critically.

Furthermore, although discussing and reflecting upon multicultural literature with others can support teachers’ development of critical literacy practices, provide windows into other cultures, and reveal alternative and/or counter perspectives, Graff (2010) warns, “as evidenced by Fecho and colleagues (2010), entering and remaining in dialogic spheres can be quite difficult. . . . [W]e run the risk of naming structures and mechanisms

. . . that harm others or perpetuate oppressive policies” (pp. 127 - 128). She advises that

85 before teachers can enter into dialogue, they need to identify those structures and mechanisms, and suggests that “[o]nly then will counter-narratives [which destabilize harmful and oppressive norms] become narratives with an open-ended invitation for future narratives which reflect the societal transformations inherent in life” (p. 128).

Summary on cultivating critical readers. Recognizing that teachers who are critical readers and advocates of multicultural education have a greater chance of helping students foster critical literacy practices and an appreciation for diversity, the instructors/researchers in this review employed a range of activities to support teachers in reading critically and understanding alternative perspectives to texts. Most engaged teachers in written and dialogic response activities that were framed by general questions.

Teachers’ familiarity and comfort in reading text through a personal lens stunted some discussions. Other factors such as the social dynamics between group members also limited the effectiveness of some discussions. Moreover, without prompting teachers to confront dominant ideologies around race, gender, culture, and equality through explicit inquiry questions, counter texts, or other strategies, it could be difficult for some teachers to accommodate alternative perspectives into their professional discourse.

Discussion B: Nurturing Culturally Responsive Teachers

Anaya (1992) sees that multicultural children’s literature, which reflects the culture and lived experience of people in the neighborhood, local community, and region, could help students connect with social realities and see their culture and background as a vital part of learning, too. He argues that students “must be exposed to stories that portray their history and image in a positive manner . . . [and] must be given the opportunity to

86 read the literatures of the many different cultures of our own country” (p. 18). In considering the work of a culturally responsive teacher, Ladson-Billings (1995) depicts a scene from a lesson situated in a predominantly African American, low-income elementary school in California. The teacher enacts culturally relevant pedagogy via a multicultural children’s book about an African princess. Midstream in a discussion, the teacher stopped and read the story to challenge the children’s assertion that all princesses have blond hair. The teacher told Ladson-Billings, “I just couldn’t let them [children] go on thinking that only blond-haired, White women were eligible for royalty. . . . I have a responsibility to contradict some of that [dominant ideas] . . . that kind of thinking [is] . . . more devastating for our children” (p. 479). The teachers’ pedagogical decision supports her role as a culturally responsive teacher. In order to counter the mainstream princess narrative that privileges white superiority, she demonstrates that persons of color also hold positions of authority. She provides a mirror to show her students that they, too, are noble and powerful.

Although not always explicitly stated, several of the studies in this review are informed by a culturally relevant approach to multicultural education (Dudley-Marling,

2003; Hade, 2003; Escamilla & Natehnson-Meja, 2003; Howrey & Wehlan-Kim, 2010;

Ketter & Lewis, 2001; Montero & Robertson, 2006). Three consider the importance of knowing and understanding the students’ backgrounds, cultures, and communities in applying culturally relevant pedagogy via multicultural children’s literature (Dudley-

Marling, 2003; Escamilla & Natehnson- Ketter & Lewis, 2001).

Understanding the community. Ketter and Lewis (2001) consider how to enact culturally relevant pedagogy via multicultural children’s literature in their book group study with middle school teachers and parents in a predominantly white, rural community. When Abby, a young white teacher, had her students read Sounder

(Armstrong, 1969), a novel that depicts the victimization of a Black character, Angela, the parent of Abby’s only African American student grew very concerned. Since Abby did not provide a historical context for the book, Angela’s son “felt isolated and alienated, and people were looking at him for answers and solutions” (p. 176). In planning for Abby’s next book selection, Cynthia Lewis suggested the novel Scorpions

(Myers, 1988), which tells the story of an African American boy who is a member of a gang to which he does not wish to belong. She reasoned that Scorpions provides a clear view of social inequity. Angela, however, questioned the message that this book sends to predominantly white students who have little experience with African American people.

She was concerned that the white students would make generalizations about African

Americans based on the novel. Congruently, the mother of an African American elementary school student advocated for books that show African Americans in positions of power. She believed that in a rural community, providing images of African

Americans as educated members of the middle class would have greater impact on decentering whiteness than presenting images of inequity. Ketter and Lewis conclude that it is imperative for educators to thoughtfully consider the context and nuances of the local community prior to recommending and/or selecting multicultural children’s literature for the classroom. They also recommend that stakeholders in the school

88 community clarify their varying objectives for multicultural education in order to appreciate the complexities of reform within the social constructs of the classroom and community.

Knowing students’ backgrounds. Similar to Ketter and Lewis, in his self-study,

Dudley-Marling (2003), a teacher educator who returned to the classroom in a diverse

Canadian community, found that in order to enact culturally relevant pedagogy via multicultural children’s literature, teachers must first learn about their students’ lives in the community. Believing that he was being responsive to his third-grade students’ background and heritage, Dudley-Marling constructed a folktale unit comprised of stories that matched his students’ ethnic, racial, cultural, and religious backgrounds. He read tales set in Egypt, Persia, India, Portugal, Greece, China, Scotland, Africa, Pakistan, and

North America as a means to acknowledge his students. When Nadar, whom Dudley-

Marling assumed was Pakistani, declared, “I am not from Pakistan,” Dudley-Marling took pause. He realized that he grossly misrepresented the heritage of this student.

Reflecting further on his unit, he also recognized that he completely missed the mark with other students, too. Concluding that when teachers use literature "to represent students' cultural and religious heritage . . . [they assume] an essential homogeneity in people's cultural heritage that clearly does not exist" (p. 311), Dudley-Marling advocates that teachers refrain from speaking on behalf of their students. Doing so could perpetuate stereotypes and is neither fair to students nor helpful in fostering learning. Rather, he sees that teachers need to create space for students to represent themselves and to affirm the students’ diverse backgrounds as cultural resources in the classroom. They also need to

89 consider the limitations of their own knowledge and background experiences in working with children from diverse backgrounds.

Learning about students’ cultures. Finally, recognizing that their white preservice teachers had limited knowledge about the Latino population of students whom they would teach in Colorado public schools, Escamilla and Nathenson-Meja (2003) initiated a three-year project using Latino children’s literature as a tool for cultivating preservice teachers’ knowledge about Latinos and fostering preservice teachers’ commitment to the Latino community. During the first year, 27 preservice teachers who were completing their field assignments in urban, inner city schools participated in the project, meeting for a seminar once per month. As part of the seminar, the preservice teachers met in literature response groups to discuss their responses to the two Latino children’s books they read over the course of the month. In preparation for their open- ended small group discussions, each preservice teacher responded to the following three questions: “1. What has this book led you to think about? 2. Have you had any experiences similar to this? In what way? 3. Would you use this book with students?

Why/Why not?” (p. 242).

Based on their analysis, Escamilla and Nathenson-Meja found that while the preservice teachers’ responses reflected general connections to the Latino children’s literature, it was unclear whether the preservice teachers increased their knowledge about

Latino culture. These findings suggest that simply reading the Latino children’s books does not “create the knowledge base, compassion, or call to action that we [Escamilla and

Nathenson-Meja] desire. . . . We are less confident that they [preservice teachers] know

90 more about either Mexicans or Mexican Americans than when we began this study” (p.

246). Not satisfied that the Year 1 preservice teachers were prepared to be culturally responsive teachers, Escamilla and Nathenson-Meja required the Years 2 and 3 preservice teachers to use the Latino children’s literature with the students in their field placements. By Year 3, Escamilla and Nathenson-Meja realized that still more preparation was needed. If they were to conduct the project again, they would pair the children’s books with explicit teaching about Mexican and Mexican American culture, make time for in-depth discussions about the themes of their book selections and the preservice teachers’ assumptions and biases about the books, require that preservice teachers consult with parents and research the books’ topics, and create space for follow- up conversations about the preservice teachers’ experience in discussing the books with students and parents in the community.

Summary of discussion. To summarize, the above-mentioned studies collectively demonstrate that educators must invest in thoughtful preparation in order to use multicultural children’s literature to enact multicultural education and culturally relevant pedagogy. In assuming the role of a culturally responsive teacher, these studies imply that teachers: a) are clear on their objectives for multicultural education; b) respect the multicultural education objective of other members of their school communities; c) understand the social polities and nuances of the school and local community in which their students reside; d) know their students and their students’ families; e) learn about their students’ cultural heritage and traditions; f) create space for students’ to express their identities; h) interrogate their own assumptions and biases about multicultural texts;

91 i) reflect on their practice; and j) recognize their own limitations.

Conclusion

In terms of pedagogical methodology, the researchers recommend that teacher education instructors:

• provide ample opportunities in teacher education programs for prospective and preservice teachers to read multicultural children’s literature (Lowry & Sabis-Burns,

2007; Mathis, 2001);

• help teachers to interrogate their own criteria for selecting children’s literature

(Schmidt, Armstrong, & Everett, 2007; Wollman-Bonilla, 1998);

• ensure that teachers have the cultural background knowledge needed to critically engage with a multicultural children’s text (Escamilla & Nathenson-Mejia,

2003);

• structure discussion around explicit inquiry questions that engage teachers in talking about the sociocultural and/or sociopolitical themes of the books that may feel uncomfortable (Herman-Wilmarth, 2010);

• advocate for long term support for new teachers in continuing to develop their identities as critical readers and culturally responsive educators through multicultural children’s literature (Apol, Sakuma, Reyonlds, & Rop, 2003; Escamilla & Nathenson-

Meja, 2003; Fu, Fang, & Lamme, 2003; Hade, 1997; Ketter & Lewis, 2001; Lowry &

Sabis-Burns, 2007; Mathis, 2001; Montero & Robertson, 2006; Schmidt, Armstrong, &

Everett, 2007; Smith, 2002; Wollman-Bollina, 1998).

This literature review has examined the ways in which prospective, practicing, and preservice teachers respond to multicultural children’s literature and how teacher education instructors use this literature in their courses and programs to support teachers in becoming critical readers and culturally responsive educators. In closing, to quote

Sonia Nieto (2000), teacher education instructors cannot “change everything in just one course, obviously, or even with ten courses, but I do think that we can, if we teach in a critical way, encourage teachers to become critical teachers and to ask the right kinds of questions” (Aaronsohn, 2000, p. 5).

Religion, Multiculturalism, and Children’s

Literature in the Public School

This chapter began with the story of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe. In this story, Clinton’s query about who painted the image of Guadalupe suggested that she did not know the dance steps of the dominant

Discourse of Mexico and fumbled on the international stage. This final section now considers the story from another angle. Clinton’s well-intentioned yet uninformed gesture at the basilica was, perhaps, representative of a pervasive yet veiled quality of the dominant Discourse: Ignorance of religious traditions outside of the dominant Discourse is a socially accepted norm. This norm is reflected in the institution of American public education (Bishop & Nash, 2007; Douglas, 2000; Green & Oldendorf, 2005; Noddings,

1993; Peyton & Renck, 2008; Rosenblith & Baily, 2007; Sanders, Foyil, & Graff, 2010;

Whitaker, Salend, & Elhowers, 2009). For example, the way public school vacation days have historically been aligned with Christian religious holidays while the mid-week celebrations of other religious holidays are inscribed as unexcused absences implies that awareness of the dominant religion is all that really matters (Peyton & Jalongo, 2008).

This section examines some of the primary issues that emerge when it comes to fostering religious awareness in public schools. The first section provides background information about the national Conversations around religion and public education and around diversity and multiculturalism. After establishing the conceptual framework and methodology for the literature review presented in this chapter, the next section begins with a brief overview of the benefits of teaching about religion in public education and the obstacles to this endeavor. Because several scholars recommend the use of multicultural children’s literature as a tool for fostering students’ religious literacy, the final section considers the ways in which religion intersects the educational scholarship through classroom use of multicultural books for children.

The Diversity and Religion Awareness Conversations

Circling back to Hillary Clinton, one could argue that her faux pas is reflective of the nation’s tolerance for “religious illiteracy” (Moore, 2007, p. 3) and the nation’s

Christian-Protestant hegemony (Meyers & Meyers, 2002; Noddings, 1993; Nord, 2010;

Peyton & Jalongo, 2008). Such hegemony poses challenges in advancing the

Conversation about cultivating a pluralistic society (Sanders et al., 2010), while the topic of private school vouchers captures many people’s imagination (Nord, 2010).

Referencing the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Moore (2007)

94 warns that the cost of religious illiteracy includes the promotion of cultural wars, the inhibition of cultural and historical understanding, and the fueling of race-based and religious prejudice. In terms of politics, Prothero (2007) argues that religious illiteracy leaves Americans “too easily swayed by [political] demagogues on the left or the right.

Few Americans are able to challenge claims made by politicians or pundits about Islam's place in the war on terrorism or what the Bible says about homosexuality. This ignorance imperils our public life” (p. 138). Further complicating matters—and despite the fact that one’s religion reflects the culture and social environment in which s/he is immersed

(Bloom, 2007)—silence about religion in schools can suggest to students that religions are unconnected to culture and society (Hayne, 1992; Noddings, 1993).

In truth, religion is inseparable from culture and society. At a young age children develop the religious discourses that are embraced by their cultures in the same way that they learn the languages of their cultures in order to communicate with others (Bloom,

2007; Noddings, 1993; Wiley, 1997). For this reason, people’s spiritual perspectives are influenced by their family, community, culture, class, race, and gender as well as the historical and sociopolitical context in which they live (Carr, 1992). Moreover, “millions of Americans find the most profound sources of meaning in their lives in their religious traditions and define themselves less in terms of ethnicity, gender, or nationality than in terms of religion” (Nord, 2010, p. 139).

Unfortunately, given that some middle school students know little about their own religions and most are uninformed about other religions in the world (Bishop & Nash,

2007), the trivialization of religion in schools fosters intolerance and leaves students

95 vulnerable to skewed notions about how people have historically struggled to make sense of their lives (Hayne, 1992; Nord 2010). Bishop and Nash (2007) see this trivialization of religion as an “act of educational neglect” (p. 31) on the part of public schools. They, like other scholars, argue that we can no longer pretend that religion does not have a fundamental effect on the world (Fraser, 1999; Green & Oldendorf, 2005; Hayne &

Thomas, 2007; Moore, 2007; Noddings, 1993; Nord, 2010; Nord & Haynes, 1998;

Rosenblith & Baily, 2007; Sanders, Foyil, & Graff, 2010; Whitaker, Salend, & Elhowers,

2009).

Why hasn’t learning about major and minor world religions been incorporated in public education? Why hasn’t the nation’s constitutional commitment to religious pluralism been translated into educational goals for religious literacy (Sanders, Foyil, &

Graff, 2010)? These questions intersect the Conversation about diversity and multicultural education. As mentioned earlier, multicultural education regards the experiences, interests, and concerns of people who are outside of the dominant social group and supports curricular, pedagogical, and policy related reforms that are inclusive of all students. A critical component of the multicultural education agenda is to affirm

“the pluralism (ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, economic, and gender, among others) that students, their communities, and teachers reflect” (Nieto & Bode, 2008, p. 44, emphasis added). This affirmation of pluralism is consistent with the national

Conversation about respecting diversity, which is reinforced by some state and federal laws.

Applying a political lens, Nord (2010) argues that despite the objective of affirming pluralism, “the multicultural movement has been largely tone-deaf to religious cultures and subcultures” (p. 139). This is in part because, historically, Multiculturalists were first concerned with the way American education was for so long dominated by an oppressive Eurocentric, white, male, Protestant agenda (Nord, 2010; Taxel, 1995). As the Religious Right political conservatives started to make advances toward restoring

Protestant models of “traditional values,” prayer, and creationism in public education,

“multiculturalism has shown little sympathy for religion” (Nord, 2010, p. 139). Nord

(2010) interprets this apathy toward the educational oppression of religious subcultures as

“a betrayal of principles” (p. 139) because a matter of justice is at stake.

Applying a cultural lens, Fraser (1999) argues that educational efforts “to understand different cultural traditions without attention to their religious roots invites a shallowness unhelpful to cultural understanding” (p. 5). Such efforts also undermine the objectives of multicultural education. Like Nord, Fraser (1999) sees that

Multiculturalists “have found ways to approach some of our society’s most divisive issues with new levels of respect and tolerance while also insisting that the sometimes hidden dimensions of power and control are understood and dealt with properly” (p. 5).

He argues that the same approach is needed to foster the religious literacy that is necessary to cultivating pluralism.

Conceptual Framework

In contextualizing religion as a cultural phenomenon, the multicultural education lens provides a framework for an informed and respectful exploration of religious

97 pluralism and literacy (Fraser, 1999). The need for culturally responsive pedagogy

(Ladson-Billings, 1995) underpins this chapter’s discussion, suggesting a focus on the ways in which religion intersects with multicultural children’s literature studies in education and with the use of children’s books to foster religious awareness.

Methodology

The articles, chapters, and books that were selected for analysis came from three different sources. In looking for articles about religion, children’s literature, and education, I conducted an online search with the EBSCO database and consulted a wide range of education books about multicultural children’s literature. This search resulted in a small set of relevant articles and chapters, illustrating the limited research in this area. I used the OSU library catalog to identify not only texts about religion and education in the

United States, but also books about religion in Latin America. Last, I consulted the table of contents and reference sections of these relevant materials in order to identify additional studies. After iterative readings of the relevant materials, I analyzed the texts for emerging themes (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Table 5 provides a list of the articles and chapters that specifically address the pedagogical use of children’s literature to foster religious literacy and cultural pluralism.

Table 5. Sources for Literature Review.

Using Children’s Literature as One Tool for Analysis of Religious Representations in Teaching About Religion in the Public Children’s Literature School Classroom • Lehman (2005). Religious representation in • Ayers & Reid (2005). Teaching about Religion children’s literature: Disclosure through in Elementary School: One Texas District. character, perspective, and authority.

• Bishop & Nash (2007). Teaching for Religious • Sanders, Foyil, & Graff (2010). Conveying a Literacy in Public Middle Schools. stance of religious pluralism in children’s literature. • Green & Oldendorf (2005). Teaching religious diversity through children’s literature. • Trousdale (2005). Intersections of spirituality, religion and gender in children’s literature. • Peyton & Jalongo (2008). Honoring religious diversity and modeling respect for faiths Booklists & Annotated Bibliographies through children’s literature. • Kipling, (2008). Using children’s literature to teach about religion in America. • Rosenblith & Bailey (2007). Educating for a Religiously Literate Society. • Peyton (2008). A list of picture books to promote religious understanding. • Whitaker, Salend, & Elhoweris, (2009). Religious diversity in schools: Addressing the • Zeece (1998). “Can God come here?” Using issues. religion-based literature in early childhood.

Discussion A: Benefits and Obstacles to Fostering Religious Literacy

Benefits. Basic knowledge about the concepts, symbols, and practices of various religions cannot only promote cross-cultural understanding and help students to make sense of history, art, literature, and modern society, but can also help students appreciate the civic framework of American government that provides for religious liberty under the

Bill of Rights (Hayne & Thomas, 2007). In addition, learning about religions supports students in becoming global citizens who embrace a democratic culture of toleration, respect, and understanding of diversity in our nation and world (Fraser, 1999; Green &

Oldendorf, 2005; Haynes, 1992; Moore, 2007; Rosenblith & Baily, 2007). Furthermore, by fostering accurate knowledge about religious traditions (Rosenblith & Baily, 2007), religious studies can be a springboard for countering stereotypes and discussing the issues of racism and prejudice (Ayers & Reid, 2005). 99

These outcomes are not only consistent with the tenet of multicultural education, but also consistent with the United States International Religions Freedom Act. The 2010 annual report to the Office of the Secretary of State outlines that each child:

shall be protected from any form of discrimination on the ground of religion or

belief. He shall be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship

among peoples, peace and universal brotherhood, respect for freedom of religion

or belief of others, and in full consciousness that his energy and talents should be

devoted to the service of his fellow men. (Appendix C, Article 5)

In order to raise the nation’s children to be understanding, tolerant, and respectful of all people’s freedom of religion or belief under the U.S. Constitution, it is critical to foster religious literacy as a national value in the public forum. Perhaps even more immediate to educators, the National Council for the Social Studies (1998) advocates that learning about religions “has a rightful place in the public school curriculum because of the pervasive nature of religious beliefs, practices, institutions, and sensitivities” (p. 1).

This national organization sanctions the study of religions under the NCSS Curriculum

Standards for Social Studies, which state, “Students in social studies programs must study the development of social phenomena and concepts over time; must have a sense of place and interrelationships . . .; must understand institutions and processes that define our democratic republic” (p. 1).

Obstacles. While the benefits of fostering religious literacy and cultural pluralism are invaluable, there are at least six major issues to navigate:

• the dominance of Christianity in mainstream American culture

100

• the taboo nature of topics like religion

• the myth about the separation of Church and State

• the lack of clarity on what it means to teach about religion

• the lack of preparation on the part of teachers

• the paucity of published research

Dominant American culture. As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, most Americans believe that the United States is a Christian nation. Correspondingly, mainstream American culture is influenced by Christian ideals and the notion that the religious majority rules (dominates). Noddings (1993) suggests that one of the greatest societal obstacles to fostering religious literacy in public schools “is probably fundamentalism and all those linguistic practices implicitly associated with it” (p. 141); this statement acknowledges that some fundamentalists reject learning about religions other than their own. Teachers, administrators, and students who are not fundamentalists, but are members of the dominant Christian religion, still may not recognize the need for or value of exploring religious diversity because they “have no need for it” (Sanders,

Foyil, & Graff, 2010). Consequently, a systemic shift of attitude may be needed to overcome this obstacle.

Taboo topic. The call for religious literacy challenges the dominant social norm that talking about religion—like talking about sexuality, race, class, and gender identity—is taboo. Several scholars speak to this general reluctance to discuss religion

(Bloom, 2007; Fraser, 1999; Green & Oldendorf, 2005; Hayne & Thomas, 2007; Moore,

2007; Noddings, 1993; Nord & Haynes, 1998; Rosenblith & Baily, 2007; Sanders, Foyil,

101

& Graff, 2010; Whitaker, Salend, & Elhowers, 2009). To provide a broader context for this issue, Bloom (2007) observes that the reluctance is not exclusive to education. He sees that even developmental psychologists consider religion a “taboo” topic, likely because they do not want to offend anybody or they are personally sensitive about the taboo. Similarly, some teachers avoid any discussion of religion for fear of offending someone or inciting opposition from parents and/or school administrators, potentially causing a negative impact on their employment (Peyton & Renck, 2008; Sanders, Foyil,

& Graff, 2010).

It is interesting to note, however, that schools contend with many taboo topics such as race, gender, sex education, and politics. Controversy surely cannot be isolated to discussing religion. Excluding religious awareness from the curriculum, on the other hand, is controversial, too. Given that many public schools do not take religion seriously, it is not surprising that “parents raise a ruckus or desert them for private schools or home schooling” (Nord, 2010, p. 186). Controversy might actually be mediated or lessened if religious literacy was embraced in public education.

The myth about Separation of Church and State. A dominant myth in mainstream American culture is that learning about religion (Church) has no business in public education (State). Thus, many teachers believe it is unlawful to discuss religious worldviews in the classroom (Bishop & Nash, 2007; Escamilla & Nathenson-Meija,

2003). This is not true. According to Hayne and Thomas (2007), the Supreme Court has ruled that public schools may teach about religion, but may not sponsor religious practices (Engel v. Vitale, 1962; Abington v. Schempp, 1963). In Abington v. Schempp,

102 the landmark case in which the Supreme Court declared that it is unconstitutional for public schools to sponsor Bible reading, Associate Justice Tom Clark wrote,

[I]t might well be said that one’s education is not complete without a study of

comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the

advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of

study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates

that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a

secular program of education, may not be affected consistently with the First

Amendment. (Haynes & Thomas, 2007, p. 97)

Justice Clark’s remarks indicate that a comprehensive education includes the study of religions. Moreover, provided that the program of study reflects an objective approach on the part of the teacher and school, learning about religions in public education is consistent with the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

Lack of clarity regarding the parameters of teaching about religion. Some teachers who recognize that it is acceptable to teach about religion still steer clear of it in their classrooms because they are unclear on what they can and cannot discuss (Green &

Oldendorf, 2005; Peyton & Renck, 2008; Whitaker, Salend, & Elhowers, 2009). For some, the line between proselytizing and teaching about religion is difficult to define

(Nord, 2010). In a document specifically designed for teachers, Finding Common

Ground: A First Amendment Guide to Religion and Public Schools, Haynes and Thomas

(2007) provide guidelines to distinguish between teaching about religion in public schools and religious indoctrination. See Table 6.

103

Table 6. Guidelines for Teaching About Religion.

1. The school’s approach to religion is academic, not devotional. 2. The school may strive for student awareness of religions, but should not press for student acceptance of any one religion. 3. The school may sponsor study about religion, but may not sponsor the practice of religion. 4. The school may expose students to a diversity of religious views, but may not impose any particular view. 5. The school may educate about all religions, but may not promote or denigrate any religion. 6. The school may inform the student about various beliefs, but should not seek to conform him or her to any particular belief. (p. 97).

These guidelines are representative of the 14 principles for teaching about religion adopted by the National Council for the Social Studies in 1998. Teachers, administrators, parents, and community members who would like clarity on teaching about religion could consult these or NCSS’s guiding principles.

Lack of teacher preparation. Teachers’ confusion about what is and is not appropriate for classroom discussion could stem from a lack of preparation in learning to successfully teach about religion (Black, 2003; Haynes, 1992; Douglas, 2000; Noddings,

1993; Rosenblith & Baily, 2007). According to Douglas (2000), few elementary teachers would argue that they received adequate preparation to teach about social studies, let alone religion, across the curriculum. Haynes (1992) concurs, suggesting that even state mandates to include more discussion about religion in schools are not always reflected in teacher education programs. Some programs could do much to clarify for teachers that the study and discussions of major and minor religions are not only legitimate, but also

104 crucial to public education if we are to support young people in becoming citizens of a pluralistic society (Black, 2003; Fraser, 1999; Haynes, 1992; Douglas, 2000; Noddings,

1993; Rosenblith & Baily, 2007).

On this subject, Nord (2010) offer an analogy: “Several decades ago, most teachers were woefully unprepared to deal with women's and minority history and literature. . . . Educators did not say ‘Well, we better not teach that stuff.’ . . . Rather we started preparing teachers to deal with multiculturalism” (p. 187). He advocates that educators train teachers to deal with religion, too. To help teachers develop the necessary background knowledge for talking about religions, the aforementioned scholars recommend that teacher education programs incorporate historical, religious, and cultural studies into the curriculum. With the appropriate content knowledge, teachers could then situate their discussions about religion within historical and cultural contexts (Haynes,

1992; Douglas, 2000; Rosenblith & Baily, 2007).

Paucity of research. As evidenced by the limited number of articles listed in the

EBSCO database, teaching about religion in the public school is somewhat absent from the research agenda. Bishop and Nash (2007) argue that although multicultural education advocates that schools respect individual differences and honor the unique qualities of different cultures, consideration of religious difference “remains largely unexamined in the ongoing work toward equity, perhaps because of a general reluctance to address religious issues in a public school setting” (p. 21). Along this same line, Fraser (1999) suggests, “If religion can be added to the multicultural agenda, then there is hope of

105 transcending some of the nation’s longest-running and most bitter school wars” (p. 5).

Raising awareness through educational research could provide a starting point.

Summary of discussion. A dichotomy exists between our national commitment to religious and cultural pluralism and local support for fostering religious literacy.

Learning about the major and minor religions of the world could help our nation’s youth to better understand and respect people from different religious traditions; to make connections between historical, political, and social events in the world; to expand their perspectives of literature and the visual and fine arts; and to appreciate the civic framework of American government. In contrast, hegemonic ideas about the dominance of Christianity and misunderstandings about the separation of Church and State permeate mainstream culture and hinder religious literacy. Some scholars believe that religious literacy could be examined as part of the agenda for multicultural education.

Discussion B: Religion in the Research on Multicultural Children’s Literature

Literature can support readers in understanding religious traditions (Nord, 2010).

This next discussion examines some of the academic literature that is available.

Although limited in scope, the academic literature demonstrates an intersection between religion and multicultural children’s literature in at least four general ways:

• defining the scope of multicultural children’s literature

• analyzing for religion representations

• teaching about religion with certain texts

• influencing teachers’ selection and use of some texts

106

Defining the scope of multicultural children’s literature. While the definition of multicultural children’s literature has its origins in multicultural education, the term has historically regarded literature by and for people of color (Cai, 2003; Cooperative

Children’s Book Center, 2010; Gilton, 2007). Some scholars see that an expanded definition is necessary. As a result, children’s literature, which depicts the culture and experiences of people belonging to different religious groups, might also be included under the umbrella of multicultural literature. For example, Harris (1994) argues that multicultural children’s literature includes not only books about people of color, but also books about “the elderly, gays and lesbians, religious minorities, language minorities, people with disabilities, gender issues, and concerns about class” (p. 117, emphasis added). Sims Bishop (1997) believes that multicultural children’s literature “should include books that reflect the racial, ethnic, and social diversity that is characteristic of our pluralistic society and of the world” (p. 3). Stood-Hill and Amspaugh-Corson (2008) expand on that definition by including texts that reflect the experiences of white ethnic, cultural, and religious groups.

Last, Kiefer (2010), in reflecting on the evolution of multicultural education, suggests that an alternate to the term multicultural children’s literature “might be literature of diversity. Such a term allows us to broaden our understanding of the term culture” (p. 85, emphasis added). Thus, literature of diversity accommodates multiple aspects of culture, which “consists of the values, traditions, worldview, and social and political relationships created, shared, and transformed by a group of people bound together by a common history, geographic location, language, social class, religion, or

107 other shared identity” (Nieto & Bode, 2008, p. 171, emphasis added). Just as they learn to communicate with the languages of their cultures, children also develop religious discourses that are informed by their cultures (Bloom, 2007; Noddings, 1993; Wiley,

1997).

Analyzing for religion representations. When it comes to analyzing multicultural children’s literature, Bishop (1994) offers two general considerations that accommodate an examination of religion as an aspect of people’s cultures, “the book should contribute in a positive way to an understanding and appreciation of persons-of- color and their culture, or . . . offer a positive vision of a diverse society and a multicultural world” (pp. xiv–xv). In other words, the text should support readers in assuming a healthy or affirmative stance toward other cultures and a pluralistic global community.

Teachers also need to support students in assuming an affirmative stance toward such text by ensuring students receive the necessary background knowledge to understand the context of the story, as recommended by McLaughlin and DeVoogd

(2004) and other scholars in the previous chapter. In this way, they might be less inclined to automatically impose their own religious frameworks onto the story. “If we screen alternative traditions through our own conceptual filters, assuming that we know how to interpret the world,” Nord (2010) argues, then “we will gain no critical perspective on our own assumptions (p. 110).

Among the studies examined in this literature review, some scholars attend to the religious themes of multicultural children’s literature (Lehman, 2005; Sanders, Foyil, &

108

Graff, 2010; Trousdale, 2005). For example, as a religiously informed critical reader,

Lehman (2005) considers the ways in which religion is represented across three young adult novels—Gideon’s People (Meyer, 1996), Habibi (Nye, 1997), and The Storyteller’s

Beads (Kurtz, 1998). Sanders, Foyil, and Graff (2010) analyze 14 religiously pluralistic fiction and nonfiction works of children’s and adolescent literature to examine the literary strategies by which children’s authors promote a positive vision of pluralism. Trousdale

(2005) examines adolescent and young adult novels that are informed by a Christian perspective and raise critical issues about gender. She concludes that such books reflect complex issues, make for rich discussions, and generate questions that could help readers take a critical stance toward the representations of spirituality, religion, and gender.

Teaching about religion. As advocates of developing students’ religious literacy within a multicultural education agenda, several scholars examine the possibilities for using multicultural children’s literature to facilitate this objective (Ayers & Reid, 2005;

Bishop & Nash, 2007; Green & Oldendorf, 2005; Kipling, 2008; Peyton, 2008; Phelps,

2011; Whitaker, Salend, & Elhoweris, 2009; Zeece, 1998). For example, Phelps (2011) adopts a critical lens to examine the use of nonfiction children’s literature to teach about

Islam and the Muslim world. Kipling (2008), Peyton (2008), and Zeece (1998) address a range of multicultural books with religious themes to aid elementary school teachers in fostering religious literacy. Collectively, the five remaining articles (Ayers & Reid, 2005;

Bishop & Nash, 2007; Green & Oldendorf, 2005; Whitaker, Salend, & Elhoweris, 2009;

Zeece, 1998) discuss the pedagogical approaches to implementing classroom and school-

109 based religious literacy programs via different activities and texts, including multicultural children’s literature.

Influencing teacher text selections. Finally, religion also intersects the examination of teachers’ engagement with and use of multicultural children’s literature.

Two examples are discussed here. First, with regard to enacting culturally relevant pedagogy, Hade (1997) describes the way he attempted to honor the religious heritage of his third-grade Muslim students via multicultural children’s literature about Ramadan.

He reflects that his pedagogical decision was founded on his presumption that the

Muslim children in his class shared a common religious discourse. As a result, he effaced his students’ religious differences by selecting texts that did not acknowledge the cultural diversity of Islam, but rather presented a homogeneous view. Hade reports, “My efforts to recognize Christian holidays fared no better since our readings and discussions did not acknowledge the range of ways the [his] Christian students lived their traditions either" (p. 310). Consequently, his limited background knowledge of his students and content knowledge of Muslim and Christian religious traditions undermined his objectives for culturally responsive teaching.

Second, in contrast to Hade’s good intentions for acknowledging the religious diversity of the school community, other studies show that the religious beliefs of some teachers can become obstacles to using multicultural children’s literature. For example, in studying the teachers in their children’s literature courses, Hermann-Wilmarth (2010) and

Schmidt, Armstrong, and Everett (2007) observed that some teachers rejected books with nontraditional families and LGBT characters because, for these teachers, the themes in

110 such books infringed on their religious perspectives. In both studies, the teachers felt that by using such books, they might inadvertently reveal their religious disapproval of nontraditional families and LGBT relationships.

Summary of discussion. As a “vital resource that can help us navigate our way through past and present views of who we are and who we might become as members of a diverse society” (Enciso, 1994, p. 524), multicultural children’s literature can be a vehicle for fostering religious literacy in our pluralistic global community. The scholarship reviewed in this section demonstrates that as an important aspect of people’s culture, religion is necessarily entwined with multicultural education and culturally responsive teaching.

Discussion C: Emerging Themes from the Literature

The scholars who have written about using multicultural children’s literature to help students learn about religions agree that the selection of appropriate books is crucial.

They also suggest that in employing a critical multicultural lens, they could help to develop students’ critical reading skills, cultural awareness, and respect for religious diversity (Green & Oldendorf, 2005; Rasinski & Padak, 1990; Sander, Foyil, & Graff,

2010; Whitaker, Salend, & Elhowers, 2009; Zeece, 1998).

Preparation. In preparing to use children’s literature, Sander, Foyil, and Graff

(2010) advise that teachers first familiarize themselves with the social, historical, and cultural contexts of the texts they have selected for teaching about religion. This advice is consistent with Black’s (2003), Haynes’s (1992), Douglas’s (2000), and Noddings’

(1993) observation that teachers need to have a solid foundation in historical, cultural,

111 and religious studies in order to establish a context for examining religions with students.

The text selections should include a variety of books and materials to provide a range of perspectives. As Lehman (2005) argues, teachers need to “read and compare multiple texts (including nonfiction) about the same religion to gain a sense of accuracy and authenticity” (p. 20). She sees that no single book can provide a comprehensive story about a religious tradition, since the text usually reflects the author’s interpretation of that story. In addition, Sander, Foyil, and Graff (2010) also recommend that prior to sharing the texts in their classrooms, teachers consider the local context in which their students and the school are situated in order to understand the multiple and sometimes subtle factors that could influence the class’s discussion. In other words, teachers need to enact culturally responsive pedagogy that is specific to their local situations. With the necessary advance preparation, a teacher could create in her classroom a “space of reaffirmation” (Medina & Enciso, 2002, p. 42) that offers a forum in which to foster religious and cultural understanding and to enact multicultural education.

Book recommendations. Scholars have several different perspectives on book recommendations. To begin, Rosenblith and Baily (2007) put forth a general recommendation that middle school teachers consider and evaluate for their classrooms young adult novels in which the protagonist struggles to make sense of her/his own religion as well as other religions. Other scholars endorse specific children’s literature titles for teaching about religion and, occasionally, cultural identity (Green & Oldendorf,

2005; Peyton, 2008; Whitaker, Salend & Elhowers, 2009; Zeece, 1998). With the exception of Sander, Foyil, and Graff (2010), who specifically analyzed 14 books, none

112 of the scholars who provide book recommendations in their articles explicitly state that their endorsements resulted from the critical reading and review of many different texts for children. One might presume that this is implied, however, given the articles’ inclusion in academic publications and unique theme of using children literature to teach about religious diversity. Zeece’s (1998) booklist focuses on books that offer a general discussion of religions of the world and the concept of God, albeit more Judeo-Christian in nature. The other articles also list books that are specific to certain religious traditions.

Multicultural books for teaching about Catholicism. Of note, the authors of two of the articles (Green & Oldendorf, 2005; Peyton, 2008) endorse the same book for teaching about Catholic Christianity, The Lady of Guadalupe (dePaola, 1980). Peyton

(2008) includes The Lady of Guadalupe, along with nine other nonfiction titles, in her text set for teaching about Catholicism. Six of the other books on her list are biographical about saints and holy people. The remaining three books discuss the Catholic faith and religious practices. In contrast to Peyton’s text set, Green and Oldendorf (2005), whose booklists contain abundant texts describing other religions, recommend dePaola’s picture book as the only resource for teaching about Catholicism under the umbrella of

Christianity. Similarly, Whitaker, Salend, and Elhowers (2009) endorse a single book for teaching about Catholicism, Las Posadas: An Hispanic Christmas Celebration (Hoyt-

Goldsmith, 1999).

It is remarkable that each of the two books Green and Oldendorf (2005) and

Whitaker, Salend, and Elhowers (2009) collectively recommend for teaching children about Catholicism specifically depicts Mexican and Mexican American people. In the

113 absence of any other books depicting Catholicism on either Green and Oldendorf’s or

Whitaker, Salend, and Elhowers’ lists, one could make a racialized inference that all

Mexican and Mexican American people are Catholic and/or few people from other ethnic groups practice Catholicism in North America. Neither inference is true, of course.

It is particularly noteworthy that these scholars’ seemingly taken-for-granted assumptions or prototypes (Gee, 2011) for “typical” Catholics are consistent with the underlying assumptions of the Latino Threat Narrative (LTN) by which persons of Latino heritage are “locked into Catholic doctrine” (Chavez, 2008, p. 41). Coincidence or not, the fact that two well-meaning articles intended to support multicultural education reflect the LTN speaks not only to the pervasiveness of the narrative but also to Lehman’s

(2005) argument that educators must carefully consider their own backgrounds and biases when it comes to addressing the religious content of children’s literature.

Analysis and evaluation. Teachers need to carefully evaluate for accuracy, bias, and stereotypes in the children’s literature they plan to use to teach about religion (Green

& Oldendorf, 2005; Haynes & Thomas, 2007; Lehman, 2005; Trousdale, 2005; Whitaker,

Salend, & Elhowers, 2009). Just as some teachers apply a critical reading lens to evaluate works of multicultural children’s literature, that same critical lens is mandatory for considering children’s books with religious themes. Some general questions for consideration appear in Table 7.

114

Table 7. General Questions for Critical Reading.

General Questions for Critical Reading • Who is the ideal reader? (Aldama, 2009) • Who is the implied author? (Stephens, 1992) • How does the text position readers? (Freebody & Luke, 1997) • How does the book and its peritext (Aldama, 2009) substantiate claims of truthfulness? (Apol, Sakuma, Reynolds, & Rop, 2003) • Where are bias and stereotypes in the text? • What are the silences or gaps in the text and what do these imply? • How do my background and assumptions influence or bias my position as a critical reader? (Lehman, 2005).

In addition to applying a critical lens to the general questions, Lehman (2005, p.

12, 16, & 18) and Trousdale (2005, pp. 75–76) provide a second set of specific questions to support teachers’ critique of the way religious themes are presented in the text. See

Table 8.

Table 8. Critique Questions for Religious Themes.

Questions to Critique the Presentation of Religious Themes • How accurately does the author depict the beliefs and practices of the religion? Does s/he present beliefs simplistically or with a range of complexities? • Does there seem to be a spiritual reality that underpins the religion in the story, or is religion presented as a human, social construction? • How much information about the religion is shared by the author and why? • What images are shown in the story? How do these enhance the story? • How do the images affect the reader’s view of the religion? • Does the story attempt to teach readers what to think about a particular issue, or to stimulate thought and discussion? • What is the author’s (and our) relationship to the religion being depicted? • What does my critical reading suggest about the author’s representation of the [religious] culture in relation to the reader living outside of the culture?

115

An additional question for teachers to consider when evaluating texts might be:

How does the author accommodate for diversity within the religion s/he depicts in the text? A question like this could be valuable in light of Dudley-Marling’s (2003) account

(earlier in this paper) of trying to be a culturally responsive teacher for his diverse group of Muslim students; he had selected books that depict a homogeneous view of Islam, thus failing to accommodate for diversity within the religion. Another question to consider, especially when evaluating nonfiction books, might be: How does the author situate the religion in a sociocultural and historical context for readers? This question could help teachers to consider what background knowledge is needed in order to thoughtfully discuss the text.

Summary. In preparing to use multicultural children’s literature to help students learn about religious diversity, it is crucial that teachers not only establish a social, historical, and cultural context for their text selections, but also enact culturally responsive pedagogy that is tailored to their local school community. The text sets that teachers assemble for teaching about different religious traditions should reflect a range of perspectives, genres, and materials when possible, because no single book can represent a religious group. Finally, in conducting a critical multicultural analysis of their text selections, teachers should attend both to general questions about the text and specific questions about the way religious themes are presented, while also considering their own biases.

Conclusion. This section started by revisiting Hillary Clinton’s visit to the

Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City. Her lack of understanding of

116

Mexican culture and religious beliefs was the topic of news stories in the days that followed. One columnist suggested that President Obama should demand that all of his diplomats “learn, not simply to think, but to study before they speak” (Richert, 2009, para

3). This message is also true for teachers who want to use multicultural children’s literature with religious themes in their classrooms as much as for educators who recommend or endorse books in journal articles. Simply because a book features Latino characters and contains a religious theme, it does not mean that the book is an appropriate tool promoting religious and/or cultural literacy among students. As Fang, Fu, and

Lamme (2003) warn, “Despite their inaccuracies, many multicultural books are nonetheless favorably reviewed and touted as authentic renditions of certain ethnic, cultural and literary heritages” (p. 287). Consequently, it is both up to authors “to get it right” when they write about religion in children’s books (Lehman, 2005) and up to the teachers and teacher educators “to get it right” when they talk about religion in children’s books.

117

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the methodology for addressing the following six research questions:

• Question One. How do prospective teachers describe their knowledge of and

relationships to the cultures depicted in select works of Latino children’s literature

that includes religious content (In My Family; Friends from the Other Side;

Abuelito Eats with His Fingers)?

• Question Two. What are prospective teachers’ general responses to works of

Latino children’s literature that include religious content?

• Question Three. What kinds of stances/subject-positions (Beach, 1997) do

prospective teachers adopt in considering the use of each book in their future

classrooms?

• Question Four. How does applying a critical lens to a re-reading of a book of

one’s choice (In My Family; Friends from the Other Side; or Abuelito Eats with

His Fingers) influence the prospective teachers’ interpretations of that book?

• Question Five. What is the likelihood that prospective teachers would discuss

with their future students the religious content of the books in this study?

118

• Question Six: What kinds of Discourses and figured worlds (Gee, 2011) do

prospective teachers construe about Latinos around works of Latino children’s

literature that includes visual religious content?

The sociocultural theoretical frame for addressing these questions is grounded in qualitative, interpretive research (Erickson, 1986; Glesne, 1999) with an emphasis on

James Gee’s (2011) concepts of Discourses and figured worlds. Gee (2008) argues:

any Discourse is a theory about the world, the people in it, and the ways in which

“goods” are or ought to be distributed among them. . . . [E]ach of us has a moral

obligation to reflect consciously on these theories—to come to have meta-

knowledge of them—when there is reason to believe that a Discourse of which we

are a member advantages us or our group over other people or other groups. Such

meta-knowledge is the core ability that schools ought to instill. . . . Such

knowledge is power, because it can protect all of us from harming others and

from being harmed, and because it is the very foundation of resistance and

growth. (p. 221)

The methodological objective for this study is to develop a meta-knowledge of the

Discourses prospective teachers employ in response to Latino children’s literature that includes religious content via careful analysis and thoughtfully discussion.

Data Collection

The data for this study comes from a set of non-random surveys (a pilot survey and the main survey) conducted at the Ohio State University in the spring and autumn quarters of 2011.

119

I selected this data collection tool because I was interested in the prospective teachers’ attitudes toward Latino children’s literature that includes visual religious content. In comparison with other data collection methods (e.g., observation, interviews) surveys generate a large amount of standardized data that can be analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Well-structured surveys allow researchers to draw accurate conclusions about “institutions and communities by studying individuals and other components of those communities that represent these entities in a relatively unbiased and scientifically rigorous manner” (Rea and Parker, 2005, p. 7).

Both the pilot and the main survey consist of several open-ended and closed- ended questions. While open-ended questions have the advantage of extracting more information than closed-ended questions, the latter provide the researcher with more precision and less space for misinterpretation (especially when trying to code complex open-ended responses).

Limitations

Participant Selection

Since survey respondents were selected based on their availability for the study

(students enrolled in the Introduction to Children’s Literature course), the survey findings cannot be easily generalized to other populations (e.g., prospective teachers in another US state). However, the findings reveal important information about these prospective teachers’ Discourses around Latino children’s literature and religious content.

In the future, the same study could be replicated with different populations to assess how respondents’ demographics might inform the findings.

120

Research Setting

A potential source of bias is related to the fact that I facilitated the main study as an instructor-researcher and thus participated in the research setting. While all of the students agreed to permit their coursework to be used as data for the study, their responses may have been construed as socially desirable comments that comply with the

Discourse of school. In order to minimize the bias I assured the students (PTs) that their responses and coursework would not be analyzed until after the completion of the class and that their grades would not be influenced in anyway by the content of their responses.

I thus encouraged the students to provide honest, candid responses.

Sociocultural theory requires that as an instructor-researcher, I reflect on my own understanding of the social constructs of my classroom and the student/school community such that I pause to consider the premises of my framework in order to accommodate alternative perspectives and realities. According to Baumann and Duffy-

Hester (2002), instructor-researchers are prone to apply their own ideological frameworks and draw from their previous experiences to pose problems, collect data, and to theorize responses to inquiries that are local to their classroom context. Hence, I acknowledge that my methodology and data analysis foreground certain values and orientations that I have as a researcher while I subjectively background other positions. For example, my experience as a former “whole language” primary grade teacher in a racially and linguistically diverse urban California community informs my understanding of culturally responsive teaching. My hope is that my inquiry project will improve my instructional

121 practices as a teacher educator and provide a forum to engage in the broader conversation about current theories and research paradigms.

Main Survey Tool Design

Survey questions. A potential source of bias could be related to the wording of some of the main survey questions. (See the Appendix to view the surveys. Also see

Figure 13, below.) For example, to address Research Questions Three and Four, data were collected from the following survey questions: “Would you use (title of book) in your future classroom?” and “If you were to use (title of book) in your future classroom, how likely would you/comfortable would you feel to discuss the significance of the religious content?” The word “use” in these questions could be suggestive of a curricular objective. In contrast, a word such as “include” might yield different results in a future study.

In addition, the latter of the two questions above varied in presentation across the three books in the study. For In My Family, the question states: “If you were to use In

My Family with your future students, how likely would you discuss the religious significance of the water tank painting, ‘The Miracle’?” The question for Friends from the Other Side differs in asking “If you were to use this book with your future students, how comfortable would you feel in discussing the religious significance of some of the paintings and artifacts in the herb woman’s bedroom?” Here, the question asks participants about their comfort level rather than their likelihood of discussing the religious content. For Abuelito Eats with His Fingers, the question asks “…how likely would you initiate a discussion about the meaning of the candles and statues in Abuelito’s

122 house?” This phrasing explicitly regards the initiation of a discussion. Such initiation is implicit in the first two questions.

Question Sequence. Another source of bias in the data collection of the main study could also be related to the order in which the questions were presented in the survey. Questions associated with the picturebook In My Family were presented first followed by questions for Friends from the Other Side and Abuelito Eats with His

Fingers. The respondents’ consideration of the first book(s) and early questions could invariably influence their responses to latter questions and book(s).

Main Study Pedagogy and Research Question One

As will be described later in this chapter, a portion of the main study follows the critical reading pedagogical sequence outlined by McLaughlin & DeVoogd’s (2004).

These teacher educators recommend that readers consider their background and biases to a text prior to applying a critical reading lens. In the main study sequence, the PTs first read the picturebooks independently and responded to the survey questions at their leisure as a homework assignment. Only after examining the critical reading process in class and learning about the historical, cultural, and social contexts of the picturebooks did the

PTs consider their own backgrounds and biases. Thus, the data collection for Research

Question One, “How do prospective teachers describe their knowledge of and relationships to the cultures depicted in selected works of Latino children’s literature?” occurred after the data collection for Research Questions Two and Three and in conjunction with the data collection for Research Four, “How does applying a critical lens to a re-reading of a book of one’s choice influence the prospective teachers’

123 interpretations of that book?” (See Appendix K for the critical reading survey instrument.) As a result, the data set for Research Question One does not reflect the PTs’ background knowledge prior to initiating the survey. Given this limitation, data from the pilot survey augment the data collection for Research Question One as will be discussed in Chapter Four.

Duration of Main Study

This study is also limited in that it was confined to a lesson segment of a survey course in children’s literature. Most of the data set was collected from the PTs’ aforementioned homework assignment. Additional data were collected from the PTs’ two-hour and thirty-minute class session during Week 8 of the course term.

Consequently, as mentioned previously, the findings from this study cannot be generalized to other populations nor can they be compared with studies that follow different methodologies. The data set is nonetheless pertinent to the PTs in this study.

Pilot Survey

This next section discusses the pilot survey that preceded the main study. During the spring quarter of 2011 I conducted this pilot survey with 141 prospective teachers enrolled in four sections of an undergraduate upper-division course titled Introduction to

Children’s Literature and taught by doctoral students. See Appendix H. The majority of survey respondents were white women (70%) followed by white men (18%). Figure 1 shows the distribution of race and gender among the pilot study respondents. The majority of the respondents were between 21 and 23 years old. For the respondents’ age distribution, see Figure 2 below.

124

3)*%&)4.&5%4.%0&

()*+,)" -+,)" !!"

%$"

#" $" &" '" %" %" &" '"

!"#$%& '()*+& ,#-%.& /$"%0& 12&

Figure 1. Pilot Study Respondents’ Race and Gender. Numbers Indicate How Many Respondents (out of 141) Belong to Each Category.

012&

*(#$ "%#$

&(#$ !"#$

)(#$

&#$ !#$ '#$ '#$ (#$ !"#$%&'(& $!#$)&'(& $*#$+&'(& $,#$-&'(& .)%& /0&

Figure 2. Pilot Survey Respondents’ Age.

Pilot survey participants were presented with seven images related to different religions (Jewish menorah, Christian cross and bible, meditating Buddha, Hindu symbol

Om, and Islam’s Quran) and cultures (Virgin of Guadalupe and a decorated skull used

125 during the Day of the Dead in Mexico). Participants were instructed to assume the role of a local public school teacher as the framework for their survey responses. They were asked to describe the image and report the likelihood (i.e. Very Un-likely, Somewhat Un- likely, Somewhat Likely, or Very Likely) that they would read and discuss a children’s or young adult book featuring such image and why. See Appendix H. Although the respondents were not specifically asked to recognize and name the symbols depicted in the images, the majority described images in terms of their cultural and religious meaning.

Content analysis of the survey results revealed a possible connection between the participants’ personal beliefs and their rejection of children’s books that include religious content that differs from their religions. The analysis also showed a possible connection between teachers’ background (subject-matter) knowledge about the religious visual content and their likelihood of using children’s books with religions content in their future classroom. Generally speaking, the latter connection is consistent with the theory that teachers’ level of subject matter knowledge in any discipline informs the content teachers will teach, as well as the process and/or pedagogy by which they will teach

(Fisher, Fox, and Paille, 1996; Grossman, Wilson, & Shulman, 1989; Shulman, 1987).

These survey results illustrate how prospective teachers’ subject matter knowledge and personal orientations toward specific cultural/spiritual content could dictate students’ access to certain works of multicultural children’s literature. See Appendix L for a diagram that describes this model. With the growing diversity of the United States, these

126 findings are disturbing as they could undermine the call for culturally competent and/or responsive teachers to enact multicultural education.

Main Study

Given the pilot survey results, and given that the pilot survey questions were presented as hypothetical propositions, I decided to conduct a new study that addressed similar questions in the context of actual works of Latino children’s literature. During the autumn quarter of 2011 I surveyed eighty-three prospective teachers enrolled in the same course as the respondents of the pilot study. At the time of this study, the children’s literature course primarily served juniors and seniors who required the class as a prerequisite to a post-baccalaureate teacher licensure program. Two sections of the course, Monday afternoon (Mon. PM) and Tuesday morning (Tues. AM), were held at the main campus of the university located in a major city. The third section of the course,

Tuesday evening (Tues. PM), was held at a regional campus of the university located in a suburban region. In this study, the survey questions were specifically focused on prospective teachers’ responses to three works of Latino children literature: In My

Family, Friends from the Other Side, and Abuelito Eats with His Fingers.

Out of 83 respondents two-thirds (67%) were from a metropolitan area and one- third from a rural area. The demographic background of the survey participants was very similar to that of a pilot study: out of 83 respondents 70% were white females and 19% white males. Demographic data was collected during Week 1 as part of an introductory survey. See Appendix I for the complete survey. See Table 9 for a distribution of race and gender.

127

Table 9. Respondents’ Race and Gender.

Race Female Male Total White 58 16 74 Asian 2 0 2 Black 1 0 1 Chinese 1 0 1 Hispanic 1 0 1 Korean 1 0 1 South African 1 0 1 White/Latin American 1 0 1 White/Puerto Rican 1 0 1 Total 67 16 83 The average age of survey respondents was 22.1 years old. For the age distribution see Figure 3.

-./&

%(#$ "!#$ "(#$

&(#$ !"#$

!(#$

'(#$

)(#$ %#$ &#$ '#$ (#$ !"#$%&'(& $!#$)&'(& $*#$+&'(& ,)%&'(& ,*%&'(&

Figure 3. Participants’ Age.

When asked about their career objective nearly eight out of ten respondents (78%) indicated teacher (not specific). For a full list of career objectives, see Table 10 below.

128

Table 10. Participants’ Preferred Career Objectives.

Career objective Number of respondents Teacher (general) 66 Teacher (special education) 9 Teacher (middle school) 4 Physical therapy 1 Speech pathologist 1 Non-response 2 Total 83

Respondents further were asked about the preferred career grade. Two out of five respondents said that they would choose elementary school, about one-fourth of respondents would choose junior high (27%) and primary grades (25%). For a full list of responses refer to Figure 4 below.

<*+82.)*./+='8"*>*""*)'("%)*'-*9*-' $'# $!#

$&#

!'# !!# !"# !&#

"'#

"&#

%# '# $# "# &# !"#$%"&'("%)*+' ,-*$*./%"&' 34.#2"'1#(1' 5#(1'+0122-' 64-78-*'-*9*-+' :2.;"*+82.+*' +0122-'

Figure 4. Respondents’ Preferred Career Grade Level.

129

Research Pedagogy

In conducting teacher research, which can facilitate improved teaching and learning in the classroom (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Lankshear & Knoble, 2004), the pedagogical objectives for this study expose prospective teachers to accurate and affirmative works of Latino children’s literature by responsible authors. By critically reading and discussing Latino children’s books in an introductory survey course of children’s literature, the participants might increase their appreciation of Latino cultures, social practices, and belief in the context of a diverse society. This study occurred during the eighth week of the Introduction to Children’s Literature course, which was structured according to genre and featured works of multicultural children’s literature each week.

Week 8 was dedicated to understanding critical literacy and examining works of Latino children’s literature. (See Appendices for materials.)

The pedagogical approach to this study is informed by the critical literacy pedagogies that are described in Chapter 2. It is also influenced by the conclusions and implications of the related teacher-research studies that are reviewed in the same chapter.

Specifically, this study was facilitated via the following pedagogical sequence of activity:

1. Prior to the Week 8 class session, prospective teachers (PTs) independently

read the following three picture books in this order: In My Family (Garza, 1996);

Friends from the Other Side (Anzaldúa, 1993); and Abuelito Eats with His

Fingers (Levy, 1999).

2. Using SurveyMonkey, an online, password protected survey tool, the PTs

electronically responded to open-ended questions about their story predictions and

130 interpretations of the picture books, their reading experiences, and their thoughts on both using the picturebooks and discussing the religious content of the books in their future classrooms. Explicit questions were developed for each picturebook. (See Table 11.) This decision was informed by the work of

Hermann-Wilmarth (2010), who found that general questions were not adequate in engaging the PTs in her children’s literature course in critical discussions, and the work of Simpson (2006), who argues that instructors need to craft explicit questions to require students to reflect on specific topics or aspects of the literature.

3. At the beginning of the Week 8 class session, using chart paper and sticky notes, PTs responded to six excerpts from professional literature about reading multiculturally (Hade, 1997), the critical multicultural analysis of children’s books (Botelho & Rudman, 2009), and the use of critical literacy in the classroom to support multicultural education (McLaughlin & DeVoogd, 2004). For each excerpt, a small group of students thematically organized the approximately 30 sticky-note responses and presented their analysis to the class. This was followed by a whole class discussion in which PTs considered the implications of critical literacy practices in the classroom.

4. Next, I presented McLaughlin & DeVoogd’s (2004) approach to fostering a critical reading stance among novice readers. Step 1. Ensure that students posses the necessary social, cultural, and/or historical contextual knowledge for critically

131 reading a specific text; Step 2. Scaffold students’ learning via a guided practice sequence such as

(a) describe what it means to be a critical reader;

(b) demonstrate critical reading through a combined read/think-aloud;

(c) guide student practice in asking critical questions such as “Whose voices are amplified and whose are marginalized or missing?”;

(d) establish time for students to practice independently; and

(e) regroup to reflect on the process.

5. As part of ensuring that the PTs had the necessary social, cultural, and/or historical contextual knowledge for critically reading a specific text, I delivered a

PowerPoint presentation about the Spanish conquest of Mexico and the significance of La Virgen de Guadalupe in Mexican and Mexican American

Discourse. Then PTs discussed brief excerpts from Goddess of the Americas

(Castillo, 1996) and Our Lady of Guadalupe (Poole, 1995).

6. Following the next steps in McLaughlin & DeVoogd’s (2004) approach, I demonstrated my own critical reading of the picture book Talking Eagle and the

Lady of Roses (Córdova, 2011) via a combined read/think-aloud. Then I distributed copies of The Lady of Guadalupe (dePaola, 1980) and led a guided practice in critically reading this picture book.

7. As an independent practice in reading critically, the PTs gathered in small groups of four to critically re-read their choice of one of the following three

132

books: In My Family (Garza, 1996); Friends from the Other Side (Anzaldúa,

1993); and Abuelito Eats with His Fingers (Levy, 1999).

8. After critically re-reading their choice of picture book, the PTs discussed their

responses to the picture book that they initially completed on SurveyMonkey.

9. Finally, they both discussed and responded in writing to a set of reflection

questions about their critical re-reading of the picture books.

Main Study Procedures

The data for this study are drawn from different sources over the pedagogical sequence of the study. Data were collected in the following order:

• During Week 1: PTs’ independent written responses to the introductory

course survey, which requested demographic information and required

respondents to consider general questions about their future book

selections;

• Prior to Week 8: PTs’ independent written responses to the pre- and post-

reading questions for each book collected electronically via

SurveyMonkey;

• Beginning of Week 8 Session: PT’s written responses and thematic

organization of sticky notes regarding six excerpts about critical literacy

practices from the professional literature;

• During Week 8 Session: Audio recordings of each whole class and small

group discussion over the course of the 2 hr, 18 min session;

133

• End of Week 8 Session: PT’s individual and/or group written reflections

on critically re-reading one of the picture books;

• Throughout Week 8 Session: Teacher-researcher field notes;

• Throughout Course: Teacher-researcher autobiography and journal entries.

Table 11 provides an outline of the rationale for each data source.

134

Table 11. Rationale for Selecting Data Sources. Q 1. How do prospective teachers describe their knowledge of and relationships to the cultures depicted in select works of Latino children’s literature that includes religious content? Data Sources Analysis Question(s) PTs’ written self-descriptions in relation to a book of their choice: In My What are the themes of the PTs’ Family; Friends from the Other Side; or Abuelito Eats with His Fingers descriptions?

Q 2. What are prospective teachers’ general responses to works of Latino children’s literature that include religious content? Data Sources Analysis Question(s) PTs’ written responses to reading questions: What topics or themes do • Describe your general response to In My Family. the PTs discuss in their • Describe your general response to Friends from the Other Side. general responses to the • Describe your general response to Abuelito Eats with His Fingers. books?

Q 3. What kinds of stances/subject-positions (Beach, 1997) do prospective teachers adopt in considering the use of each book in their future classrooms? Data Sources Analysis Question(s) PTs’ written responses to reading questions: • Would you use In My Family in your future classroom? Why? What are the PTs’ rationales for • Would you use Friends… in your future classroom? Why? using or not using the books in • Would you use Abuelito… in your future classroom? Why? their future classrooms?

Q 4. What is the likelihood that prospective teachers would discuss with their future students the religious content of the books in this study? (See Appendix for images of religious content.) Data Sources Analysis Question(s) PTs’ written responses to reading questions What are the PTs’ • If you were to use Friends with your future students, how comfortable would you rationales and/or feel in discussing the religious significance of some of the paintings and artifacts conditions for in the herb woman’s bedroom? Please explain your rationale. discussing or not • If you were to use Abuelito with your future students, how likely would you discussing the initiate a discussion about the meaning of the candles and statues in Abuelito’s religious content of the house? (See pages 2, 3, and 10.) Please explain your rationale. books in their future • If you were to use In My Family with your future students, how likely would you classrooms? discuss the religious significance of the water tank painting, “The Miracle”?

Q 5. How does applying a critical lens to a re-reading of a book of one’s choice influence the prospective teachers’ interpretations of that book? Data Sources Analysis Question(s) • PTs’ written reflections on re-reading the books in this study with a critical lens. What are the topics or • PTs’ audio recorded group and class discussions about the books themes of the PTs’ reflections?

Q 6. What kinds of Discourses and figured worlds (Gee, 2011) do prospective teachers construe about Latinos around works of Latino children’s literature that includes visual religious content? Data Sources Analysis Question(s) • All PTs’ written responses to What Discourse or Discourses are involved? reading and reflection questions What Conversations are relevant to understanding the language? What figured worlds, if any, are relevant and/or being used to make value judgments about oneself or others?

135

Selection of Latino Children’s Literature

As mentioned earlier, each of the picture books selected for this study contains visual religious content. Specifically, images of La Virgen de Guadalupe appear at least twice in each of the stories. In two of the picture books, In My Family and Abuelito Eats with His Fingers, Guadalupe and/or the religious images and artifacts are likewise mentioned in the text. In addition to having common religious content, each of the three books is about familial experiences, and each is explicitly set in the United States.

Anzaldúa (1993) tells her readers that Friends from the Other Side is set in South Texas near the U.S.-Mexico border. Similarly, Garza (1996) tells her readers that In My Family is specifically set in Kingsville, also near the border in South Texas. Abuelito Eats with

His Fingers is set in a region of the U.S. where English-speaking protagonist Tina has a friend whose famous grandfather drives a corvette and has a large swimming pool.

Parallel culture and critical fiction literature. These three stories are also representative of the category of multicultural children’s literature specifically reserved for insider writers, who best represent the collective consciousness, lived experiences, and self-image of their cultural groups (Cai & Sims Bishop, 1997). Cai and Sims Bishop

(1997) recommend that teachers primarily select books from this category of parallel culture literature by insider authors for use in the classroom. I also see that, in addition to being works of parallel culture literature, at least two of these books, In My Family and

Friends from the Other Side, are “critical fictions” (Mariani, 1991). Critical fictions are:

136

those literary texts that speak about the political, social and cultural

experiences of the authors and the communities they represent. Critical

fictions often feature the voices of those authors from underrepresented

and marginalized communities where their writing works as an agent of

liberation to claim a space in society, including a literary community that

has been dominated by white male perspectives. (Medina, 2006, p. 72)

In My Family. As an artist and author whose work is inspired by her memories and experiences growing up in South Texas, Garza started her work toward claiming a space in society for Mexican Americans early in life. According to her website, Garza

(2012) “saw the need to create images that would elicit recognition and appreciation among Mexican Americans, both adults and children, while at the same time serve as a source of education for others not familiar with our culture” (para. 1). The primary objective of her work is to foster pride in Mexican American history and culture as part of American society (Garza, 2012). Thus it makes sense that Garza (1996) dedicated In

My Family to her nieces, nephews, and other children who will see themselves in her paintings.

Friends from the Other Side. In her preface to Friends from the Other Side,

Anzaldúa’s (1993) tells readers:

I grew up in South Texas, close to the Rio Grande, the Mexican-U.S. border.

When I was a young girl, I saw many women and children who had crossed to

this side to get work because there was none in Mexico. Many of them got wet

while crossing the river, so some people on this side who didn’t like them called

137

them “wetbacks” or “mojados.” This is the story of Prietita, a brave young

Mexican American girl, and her new friend Joaquín, a Mexican boy from the

other side of the river. (p. 3)

Anzaldúa, renown Latina feminist writer, speaks to the political, social, and cultural experiences of U.S.-born Americans of Mexican heritage and immigrants of

Mexican heritage who risk their lives to cross the Rio Grande for the promise of work and a better life. In this story, Anzaldúa provides a counter narrative to the Latino Threat

Narrative. The child Joaquín and his mother are bueña gente, good Christian people as conveyed by the religious artifacts they have collected (Lopez & Serrato, 2001). They are not invading aliens implied by the Latino Threat Narrative (LTN), nor are they taking jobs away from Americans. Rather, they are the kind of people who would be nice friends and neighbors.

Abuelito Eats with His Fingers. Finally, in Abuelito Eats with His Fingers author Janice Levy, who is fluent in both Spanish and English, tells a generational story that, intentionally or unintentionally, alludes to the experiences of some Latino families in trying to conform to what Santa Ana (2002) calls the “Anglo-American narrative”

(AAN) (p. 289). Santa Ana argues that in order for persons of Latino heritage to “prove their loyalty to the hegemony of Anglo-American culture” (p. 289), they must embrace the AAN in three ways. They must: (a) present themselves as monolingual English speakers; (b) present themselves as white-identified by rejecting all “foreign” qualities associated with being from Latin America; and (c) try to become white is as many ways

138 as possible, which includes accepting that racial hierarchy that ranks white Americans superior to Americans of darker skin tone (Santa Ana, 2002).

In Abuelito Eats with His Fingers, Levy tells the story of Tina, a monolingual

English-speaking girl of Latino heritage, who must spend the day with her monolingual

Spanish-speaking grandfather, Abuelito. As the story opens, Tina dislikes and rejects everything “foreign” about Abuelito, from his language, to his fried bananas, to his candles and statues in every room. She cannot wait to get out of his house. Tina’s behavior is entirely consistent with the three criteria for being loyal to the AAN. Santa

Ana (2002) argues that such acculturation often divides generations. He sees that as children like Tina become linguistically and culturally separated from their grandparents and parents, families are more likely to be severed.

Metaphorically, Levy describes how Tina transcends her allegiance to the AAN throughout the story by getting to know Abuelito, embracing her Spanish heritage language, and coming to appreciate everything that she once thought was “foreign” about her grandfather. The story ends with hope that Tina’s family will not fall victim to the

AAN. In this sense, then, Abuelito Eats with His Fingers is likewise a work of critical fiction.

All three books could thus be considered works of critical fiction that are also works of parallel culture literature. In selecting these books for this study, the prospective teachers were not only introduced to the lived family experiences of American children of Latino heritage. They were also exposed to three compelling counter narratives to the dominant Discourse about Latinos.

139

Data Analysis

This study employs Gee’s (2011) concepts of figured worlds, Discourses, and

Conversations as tools of inquiry for analyzing the data sources. The study also employs the tools of quantitative content analysis and thematic network analysis (Attride-Stirling,

2001).

Figured worlds, Discourses, and Conversations

Gee (2011) identifies six different tools of inquiry: situated meanings, social languages, figured worlds, intertexuality, Discourses, and Conversations. He argues that these six concepts “are tools of inquiry in the sense that they lead us as discourse analysts to ask specific sorts of questions about our data” (p. 214). As tools, they act as “thinking devices” (p. 60) that guide the analysis of pieces of written and oral language, such as the written response and class discussions of the PTs in this study. While all of the tools are important, three are especially relevant to this study: figured worlds, Discourses, and

Conversations.

As discussed in earlier chapters, a figured world is a notion or taken for granted assumption about “normal” behavior, attitudes, events, people, things, and the like. A

Discourse is “a socially accepted association among ways of using language and other symbolic expressions of thinking, feeling, believing, valuing, and acting, as well as using various tools… to identify oneself as a member of a socially meaningful group” (Gee,

2008, p. 161). Conversations are popular public debates and arguments that are recognized by many people. These three tools of inquiry lead me ask the following of

Gee’s questions to guide my data analysis: a) What Discourse or Discourses are

140 involved? b) What Conversations are relevant to understanding the language? c) What figured worlds, if any, are relevant and/or being used to make value judgments about oneself or others?

Quantitative Content Analysis

Quantitative content analysis, as described by Krippendorff (2004) is founded on the premise that text (written or spoken) “is produced by someone to have meanings for someone else, and these meanings therefore must not be ignored and must not violate why the text exists in the first place” (p. 19). Krippendorff (2004) explains that content analysts infer the answers to their particular research questions via “the systemic reading of a body of texts [to] narrow the range of possible inferences concerning unobserved facts, intentions, mental states, effects, prejudices, planned actions, and antecedent or consequent conditions” (p. 25).

In this study, systemic reading of the data serves to narrow the possible range of inferences concerning figured worlds, Discourse, and Conversations. It also produces the quantifiable “numbers” that represent the frequencies of certain kinds of themes across the PTs’ written responses. Gee (2011) suggests that discourse analysts “use numbers simply to guide us in terms of hypotheses that we can investigate through close scrutiny of the actual details and content [of the text]” (p. 154). The numbers that result from the quantitative content analysis of the PTs’ responses serve as a springboard for the discussion of hypotheses in the last chapter.

141

Thematic Network Analysis

Thematic network analysis, as a qualitative methodology, specifically focuses on the technique for organizing, structuring, and depicting the themes that are presented in the data. This approach is similar to Corbin and Strauss’ (1990) grounded theory methodology that examines data at the levels of concepts, categories, and propositions It does not, however, endeavor to reveal the beginning or end of an argument or rationale

(Attride-Sterling, 2001). The benefit of employing a thematic network strategy is in the production of a “web-like network as an organizing principle and a representational means… [as] it makes explicit the procedures that may be employed in going from text to interpretation” (Attride-Stirling, 2001, p. 388).

Attride-Stirling’s (2001) thematic network approach represents a three-stage process: a) the reduction of the text; b) the exploration of the text; and c) the amalgamation of the exploration. In order to progress through the stages, I see that analysts can frame their iterative readings of the text around the principles of critical literacy. In reading the text with a critical lens, analysts might recognize their own subjectivities to substantiate the underlying assumptions of the themes in the data.

After establishing codes and a coding framework, Attride-Stirling’s (2001) approach begins with the identification of “Basic Themes” in the data. These are the most basic, lowest-order themes that are founded in a particular idea. Once the Basic

Themes are identified, they are grouped into categories that represent the main concept of the related low-order themes. This categorization requires the researcher to probe the underlying assumptions of the low-level themes to establish a common “Organizing

142

Theme” that unites and summarize the quality of the grouping. Finally, the Organizing

Themes are categorized in terms of “macro themes that summarize and make sense of clusters of lower-order themes abstracted from and supported by the data.” (p. 389) As a result, the Global Themes reveal the collective tenets of the data within the constructs of the analysis.

Given the specificity of the research questions for this study, I have applied different levels of Attride-Stirling’s (2001) thematic network analysis to address each inquiry of the data. This process necessitated extensive iterative readings of the data. It also required a rigorous and regimented approach to ensuring that each code represents a concise definition and set of parameters that are neither redundant nor interchangeable with any other code.

Code Validity

To ensure the validity of the codes and coding framework, I worked closely with peer debriefer Ausra Padskocimaite, a quantitative social scientist whose research focuses on human rights issues. Padskocimaite did not have prior knowledge about the topic and helped to reduce the possibilities for cognitive bias in the coding procedure. She offered an alternative perspective and thoughtful feedback. We engaged in multiple analytic discussions about the merits, variations, consistencies, and potential biases of each code across the data set. For example, the codes for PTs’ religion-based objections to using the picturebooks in the classroom underwent a series of revisions to fully capture the nuances of the PTs’ sentiments and concerns. In the first round of coding, “No religion in school” served as a general marker for any PT who expressed concern over discussing religious

143 content in school. Over the course of iterative readings and conversation, this single code evolved into multiple codes:

a) Discussing religion makes me uncomfortable/confused

b) I would not discuss religion (general – no rationale)

c) I would not discuss religions that contradict my beliefs

d) Little/no religion permitted in public schools (expectation)

e) Observe Separation of Church & State (specifically cited in rationale)

f) Religion does not belong in school (statement of opinion)

g) Parents teach religion (not teachers)

As a result of a rigorous protocol, the codes and coding framework, which are based on the inquiry objective and the recurrent topics in the data set, are both explicit and limited to the scope and focus of the study. Only after the completion of this process were the codes applied for analysis.

Common Codes for Separate Analyses

For Research Questions 1 - 5, the data sets for In My Family, Friends from the

Other Side, and Abuelito Eats with His Fingers are analyzed separately because each book contains unique content. For consistency and comparisons across the books, however, each of the analyses draws from the same body of codes. Give the narrow scope of the data set for each book, the Basic Themes level of analysis is descriptive.

The analysis for Research Question 6, which regards the figured world PTs construe around Latinos in response to works of Latino children’s literature, draws from the data that reference (explicitly and/or implicitly) Latinos, Hispanics, Mexicans, or

144

Mexican-Americans. These references are used interchangeably among the PTs with regard to the characters in each of the books. Most of this data was included among popular Basic Themes for Questions 1 – 5 such as Family life, traditions, relationships, childhood and Foster cultural awareness. This new data set was reduced in analyzing each response according to this question: “What figured worlds, if any, are relevant and/or being used to make value judgments about oneself or others?” After this inquiry step, the process for developing new Basic Themes and Organizing Themes ensued.

The next chapter shows the results for all of the analyses for the Research Questions.

145

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter discusses the data sets for each of the six research questions:

• Question One. How do prospective teachers describe their knowledge of and relationships to the cultures depicted in select works of Latino children’s literature that includes religious content (In My Family; Friends from the Other Side;

Abuelito Eats with His Fingers)?

• Question Two. What are prospective teachers’ general responses to works of

Latino children’s literature that include religious content?

• Question Three. What kinds of stances/subject-positions (Beach, 1997) do prospective teachers adopt in considering the use of each book in their future classrooms?

• Question Four. How does applying a critical lens to a re-reading of a book of one’s choice (In My Family; Friends from the Other Side; or Abuelito Eats with

His Fingers) influence the prospective teachers’ interpretations of that book?

• Question Five. What is the likelihood that prospective teachers would discuss with their future students the religious content of the books in this study?

• Question Six: What kinds of Discourses and figured worlds (Gee, 2011) do prospective teachers construe about Latinos around works of Latino children’s literature that includes visual religious content? 146

Research Question One

How do prospective teachers (PTs) describe their knowledge of and relationships to the cultures depicted in select works of Latino children’s literature that includes religious content (In My Family; Friends from the Other Side; Abuelito Eats with His Fingers)?

This first question of the study considers the kind of experiences the PTs bring to reading Latino children’s literature that includes visual religious content. As presented in the Methodology section, 70% of the PTs in the study were white women and 19% were white males, totaling 89% of the respondents. These demographics are consistent with the national statistics on public school teachers in which 83% of K-12 teachers are white, non-Hispanic (U.S. DOE, 2008). As prospective teachers, 88% were age 23 or younger.

This inquiry into PTs background knowledge was conducted during the Week 8 session of an undergraduate survey of children’s literature course as part of a critical reading strategy (McLaughlin & DeVoogd, 2004). As the first step to this strategy, the PTs were provided background information about the historical/cultural significance of the La

Virgen de Guadalupe. Then, the critical reading process was modeled through a read/think-aloud of Talking Eagle and the Lady of Roses (Córdova, 2011) and was followed by a guided practice with The Lady of Guadalupe (dePaola, 1980).

Prospective Teachers’ Background Knowledge

After these initial steps and upon initiating their own independent critical re- reading of In My Family, Friends from the Other Side, or Abuelito Eats with His Fingers, the PTs described their background knowledge relative to the stories. The themes of their responses are described in Figure 5. 147

!"#$%&'"&(#)*+,-./0%1&'*2&%34"'/"*

*# (# %# !)# !'# +#,-#.,-/0/,1#2/34#5/16/7#8.#9:,;,0:<=# !"# >8#?,@A618:7;#A7820=;6=# !$# B<,7/C4#0,76:,6=#@0,CC# %# DE8;,FGC#@0,CCD# %# >87H1=C<87C=# %# B8:1@=#783#C<=@/I=;# &# B@4880J:7/K=1C/3F# '# +#,-#.,-/0/,1#2/34#L,3480/@/C-# (# M=N/@,7#.88;# $# M=N/@,7JO/C<,7/@JP,Q78#.1/=7;C# $# E1,K=0C#38#P,Q7#R-=1/@,# )# +#,-#M=N/@,7JP,Q78JO/C<,7/@# !# +#,-#.,-/0/,1#2/34#S,F#8.#34=#S=,;# !# M=;/,# !# MF#827#1=C=,1@4# !#

Figure 5. Respondents’ Background Knowledge of Mexican and Mexican American Cultures. Numbers Indicate How Many of the 68 Respondents Selected Each Answer.

Having just learned about the historical, cultural, and religious significance of La

Virgen de Guadalupe (Guadalupe) in the first part of the Week 8 class session, about one- fifth the 68 PTs who participated in the reflection activity, not surprisingly, stated that they were familiar with Guadalupe (22%) during the latter part of the session. Given the timing of this data collection and potential bias of the PTs, the finding from the pilot study, described in the methods section, augments this data set.

As a point of comparison, only 6 out of 141 respondents in the pilot survey, who shared the same demographics as the PTs, accurately identified an image of Guadalupe.

Pilot survey results show that while 83% of respondents could identify a cross and a bible as Christian symbols, only 4% recognized La Virgin de Guadalupe. The majority of

148 respondents (69%) described the image of La Virgen de Guadalupe as a “Catholic symbol” or “Virgin Mary,” but did not provide Guadalupe’s actual name. See Figure 6.

1&$2"#0&-3"-+#$2"4&5-67"$86256-$&9$:;*3*<;0"=$

,'"# $%"# ('"#

$'"#

+'"#

!'"#

*'"# &("# )'"# &'"# &'"# !"#

'"# !"#$ %&'"()*+$ ,&$ ,&-./"#0&-#"$

Figure 6. Pilot Survey Respondents’ Recognition of Guadalupe.

Returning to the PTs who participated in the Week 8 reflection activity, it is also not surprising that eight respondents (12%) described the source of their knowledge as

Spanish classes or “today’s class.” What is remarkable about this data set is the variety of sources that support the PTs’ background knowledge. One PT stated that she did not have any background knowledge because, “I am an American and I am not related to anyone and do not know much about the culture.” In this statement, the PT seems to suggest that as an “American” she does not have contact with persons of Mexican heritage. Other PTs draw from multiple sources such as food, travel, friends to inform their notions of what constitutes Mexican/Hispanic/Latino culture. These sources could work in tandem with dominant Discourse to shape the PTs’ figured worlds in defining, for example, the “typical” Mexican-American family.

149

Research Question Two

What are prospective teachers’ general responses to works of Latino children’s literature that include religious content? This second question of the study considers the PTs general response to the three picture books, In My Family, Friends from the Other Side, and Abuelitio Eats with His

Fingers. This question was addressed in the PTs’ written descriptions of their general, open-ended responses to In My Family, Friends from the Other Side, and Abuelito Eats with His Fingers. For each book, the themes and comments of the PTs responses are described below.

In My Family

Given the nature of Carmen Lomas Garza’s paintings and stories about her childhood in Kingsville, Texas, 40% of all of the PTs mentioned the themes of family.

(See Table 12.) Even more respondents (45%) described personal connections they made to Garza’s family story and celebrations, and 12% described Garza’s stories as being relatable. For example, one respondent writes, “Our cultures are relatable, even if we aren’t doing the same things.” Another suggests, “I too have a very large family. We have many family get-togethers with lots of people and more food than anyone can eat.”

A third person offers, “This book made me think of how different a Spanish home is and how much a like it is to ours. Their families get together to eat and celebrate and so do we.”

Nearly half (46%) of all respondents also suggest that In My Family provides a window into a different culture. At the same time, 12% reported that they could not relate to the story. One respondent writes, “the experiences of children growing up 150

Mexican are so different than the ones I had.” Another reports, “This book led me to think about the differences between our culture and Mexican culture. I realized that there were a great deal of differences.” A different PT suggests, “I would use this book because of all the different ways it talks about [sic]. It is just a good way to show different cultures.” In short, the PTs’ general responses most frequently regarded comparisons of the similarities and differences between Garza’s family and the readers’ figured worlds for “typical families” and “typical ways of being together.” Among other common responses, 18% liked the family album quality of In My Family while 6% did not.

151

Table 12. Respondents’ General Response to the Book In My Family.

Respondents General response to In My Family: (Total 83) Themes: Culture/traditions: 38 (46%) • Other/different 26 (31%) • Mexican/Hispanic/Latino 13 (16%) Family life, traditions, relationships, childhood: 33 (40%) • General 27 (33%) • Mexican/Hispanic/Latino 6 (7%) Healer/Herb Woman 2 (2%) Hardship/struggle in life (general) 2 (2%) La Llorona 1 (1%) Non-traditional medicine/treatment (earache) 1 (1%) Immigration: General 1 (1%) Other comments: Personal connection: 37 (45%) • Family life 30 (36%) • Traditions/holidays 17 (20%) • Feelings/experiences 3 (4%) • Religion 1 (1%) Like the style/format/content of book 15 (18%) No personal connection 10 (12%) Relatable/interesting for the reader: 10 (12%) • General 8 (10%) • Relatable for the reader (traditions/holidays) 1 (1%) Dislike the style/format/content of book 5 (6%) Book is suitable for ESL/Mexican/Spanish-speaking readers 2 (2%) Not exciting 2 (2%) Questionable content: La Llorona 1 (1%) Students might not relate/be interested in story 1 (1%) Empathize with characters' struggles in story 1 (1%)

Friends from the Other Side

When asked about their thoughts on the book Friends From The Other Side, nearly one fourth of respondents talked about helping/treating other people with kindness

152

(24%) and standing up to bullying/being brave (24%). With respect to other comments, about one fourth (23%) of respondents said that they could not connect to the story and about one fifth (18%) of all respondents said they had a personal connection to the story.

(See Table 13 below.)

The most common themes to emerge from the PTs’ responses to Friends from the

Other Side are about immigration (55%). Among the various lenses that the respondents apply to immigration, by far the most frequent is undocumented or “illegal” immigration, representing 22% of the respondents. All of these respondents used the term “illegal” to describe Joaquin and his mother’s crossing of the Rio Grande from Mexico into the U.S.

For example, one respondent writes, “I found this book relevant to current issues because illegal immigration is a hot topic in the political world.” Another reports, “I liked the story. I feel this makes everyone think of real reasons why there are so many illegals coming into America.” Lastly, a PT reflects, “Again, I couldn't really relate to any of the characters in the story, but the examination of the border patrol's hunt for illegal immigrants from a child's perspective was interesting.” Of note, this PT’s presumably unconscious use of the word “hunt” is disturbing, as it suggests an association of immigrants from Mexico with animals. Santa Ana (2002) argues that the use of animal metaphors is likewise employed in dominant Discourse to fan anti-Latino sentiment by some politicians.

153

Table 13. Respondents’ General Response to the Book Friends from the Other Side. Respondents General response to Friends from the Other Side: (Total 83) Themes: Immigration: 46 (55%) • Hardship/struggle in life (Mexican immigrant) 20 (24%) • Immigration: Undocumented/illegal 18 (22%) • Immigration: Alternative perspective 9 (11%) • Immigration: Causes 9 (11%) • Immigration: Border Patrol 7 (8%) • Immigration: General 6 (7%) • Immigration: Mexican 4 (5%) • Immigrants are like Jews/Slaves/Japanese 3 (4%) Helping and/or treating people who are different/in need with kindness 20 (24%) Standing-up to bullying/being brave 20 (24%) Friendship: 14 (17%) • General 7 (8%) • Friends helping/supporting each other 7 (8%) • With people who are different 3 (4%) Acceptance/respect for others 9 (11%) Healer/Herb Woman 7 (8%) Mexicans and Mexican Americans support each other 5 (6%) Hardship/struggle in life (general) 3 (4%) Family life, traditions, relationships, childhood: 3 (4%) • General 2 (2%) • Mexican/Hispanic/Latino 1 (1%) Mexican/Hispanic/Latino culture/traditions 2 (2%) Other/different culture/traditions 1 (1%) Other comments: No personal connection 19 (23%) Personal connection: 15 (18%) • Feelings/experiences 9 (11%) • Not specified 6 (7%) Empathize with characters' struggles in story 6 (7%) Students should know about national/regional issues 4 (5%) Dislike the style/format/content of book 2 (2%) Topic is not for kids (immigration) 2 (2%) Questionable content: racial slurs 2 (2%) Book is suitable for ESL/Mexican/Spanish-speaking readers 2 (2%) Book has/promotes a good message/lesson 1 (1%) I like the style/format/content of book 1 (1%) Students might not relate/be interested in story 1 (1%)

154

Despite the PTs’ responses, nowhere in Friends does Anzaldúa use the term

“illegal.” Rather, this is an instance when knowledge of the national Conversation (with a capital C) (Gee, 2011) regarding immigration and the border is necessary to understand the context of the PTs’ remarks. In the Conversation, the terms “illegal” and “aliens” are most frequently used to describe immigrants from Mexico in the dominant Discourse

(Chavez, 2008; Chomsky, 2007; Santa Anna, 2002). As described by Chomsky (2007),

“Mexicans cross the border ‘illegally’ because they are not allowed to cross the border legally. The law discriminates by making it illegal for some people who do what is perfectly legal for others” (p. 187). Unfortunately, the data in this study does not reveal whether the respondents are aware of the historical/political circumstances, which lead them to render Joaquin and his mother “illegal.” The data for this particular research question does show that at least a couple of people are concerned that the Conversation about immigration is controversial and is not a topic for kids.

As immigration is a “hot topic” in the public arena, it is perhaps not surprising that nearly one quarter of the respondents focused on the moral theme of helping and/or treating people who are different with kindness. One respondent says that she “liked how the issue addressed in the book is based upon characters helping each other out, and how doing good things for other people can be something that is difficult at times, but is very helpful for those people.” A PT who made a personal connection to the story adds that, like Prietita who helped Joaquin, “One way I could relate was by being the girl who stood up for and helped those who are less fortunate.”

155

An additional quarter of respondents discussed the importance of standing-up to bullies just as Prietita stood up to her bully cousins who picked on Joaquin. In response to the story, one PT writes, “this book really talked about morals and how important it is to stick up for people when they need someone.” Another PT shares that her favorite part of the story regards “the way Prietita stood up for her new friend Joaquin. I think this is an important message to share with children, not only how bullying can hurt feelings but about having the courage to do what’s right.” Acceptance and respect for others and friendship were likewise themes that appeared among some responses: “The text had a great theme. I believe it was to accept everyone and that we are all human” and “I thought the book was good and it really showed the value of friendship.”

Abuelito Eats with His Fingers

Nearly two thirds of the responses (64%) to Abuelito Eats with His Fingers included comments about how Tina, the young girl in the story, transcends her rejection of her Spanish-speaking grandfather as a foreigner such that she can embrace her

Abuelito and the cultural heritage he maintains. (See Table 14 below.)

156

Table 14. Respondents’ General Response to the Book Abuelito Eats With His Fingers.

Respondents General response to Abuelito Eats With His Fingers: (Total 83) Themes: Communication/language 14 (17%) Acceptance/respect for others 13 (16%) Family life, traditions, relationships, childhood (general) 10 (12%) Comparing yourself to others 8 (10%) Culture/traditions: 5 (6%) • Mexican/Hispanic/Latino culture/traditions 4 (5%) • Other/different culture/traditions 1 (1%) Elders are source of knowledge/should be respected 3 (4%) Exposure to your own culture 3 (4%) Overcoming generation gaps 2 (2%) Other comments: Comments about Tina and Abuelito: 53 (64%) • Development of Tina’s and Abuelito’s relationship 40 (48%) • Tina's negative feelings towards Abuelito 10 (12%) • Tina's relationship with Abuelito (general) 3 (4%) • Comments about Abuelito 2 (2%) Personal connection: 32 (39%) • Grandparents 24 (29%) • Not specified 3 (4%) • Feelings/experiences 3 (4%) • Family life 2 (2%) Relatable/interesting for the reader: 7 (8%) • General 4 (5%) • Relatable for the reader (feelings/experiences) 2 (2%) • Relatable for the reader (grandparents) 1 (1%) No personal connection 4 (5%) Book has/promotes a good message/lesson 2 (2%) Dislike the style/format/content of book 1 (1%)

The PTs offered various comments on Tina’s transformation. “I thought this book was clever. The way it transitioned from Cristina disliking her grandfather and visiting with him to her enjoying the visit was fun to watch and experience with her,” writes one respondent. Another shares that Abuelito Eats with His Fingers was her “favorite story out of the three books.” She adds, “many children don't look forward to their

157 grandparents house but I thought the way the author shows Cristina's process of becoming close, even with the language gap, was very interesting.” Congruently, 39% of the PTs made personal connections to the story regarding their experiences with their grandparents. One respondent writes, “I can relate to this book because my Oma

(grandmother in German) lived with my grandparents. . . . She spoke German and had very little broken English. . . . it was just weird at times because I was young and didn’t appreciate or understand the beauty of the situation.” “My grandfather is from Peru,” reveals another respondent. Like Abuelito, “his house always stunk and he ate weird food. I thought the little girl was going to complain the whole time…” Recalling her grandparents, yet another PT shares, “Everything that Cristina did with Abuelito is reminiscent of things I have done with my own grandparents, such as cooking, drawing, and seeing things that belonged to family members who are now gone. I enjoyed this personal connection to the story.”

The theme of communication and language was also common to 17% of the respondents. “I especially liked that while there was a language barrier between Cristina and her grandfather, they were still able to communicate and have a nice time,” one PT comments. In contrast, another respondent was “surprised that the two main characters spoke different languages yet were still able to communicate and have a wonderful day together.” Someone else adds, “This book led me to think about how hard it must be to try and interact with a family member who does not speak your language.” Comments like this suggest that in the respondents’ figured worlds, encounters between people who speak different languages are not typically “wonderful.” Thus, Tina and Abuelito’s

158 capacity to overcome their language barriers offers a surprising counter narrative to some

PTs.

Finally, Tina’s negative feelings toward Abuelito at the beginning of the story also made for a popular topic among 12% of respondents. Some of the PTs were dismayed: “I think the girl had prejudgments of her grandfather before getting to know him;” “The start of the book surprised me how she [Tina] is just putting her Grandpa down the whole time;” “She was very negative about him;” “[It] surprised me that this little girl hated or didn't like going to her grandfathers place;” and “[Tina] did not like to visit her grandfather. . . . This just makes me wonder why she wouldn't like that.” In each of these responses, the PTs seem to assume what Beach (1997) calls an “individual prejudice” stance, discussed in Chapter 2. From this stance, readers view prejudice as a problem that varies from person to person rather than a pervasive institutional issue.

Much like the young boy in the 1980s Public Service Announcement (PSA) who refers to a boy, Jimmy, as “one of my Jewish friends” and who is diagnosed as being prejudiced by his grandfather, some of the PTs appear to make the same diagnosis of

Tina. Only one person wonders why Tina wouldn’t like visiting her grandfather. As a work of critical fiction (Mariani, 1991), which speaks to the political, social, and cultural experiences of the Mexican-American community, Abuelito Eats with His Fingers illustrates the way Tina’s behavior is a reflection of the institutional rejection of monolingual Spanish speakers who maintain the traditions of their home countries. In the context of the Anglo-American narrative (Santa Ana, 2002), Tina’s initial rebuff of

Abuelito, his language, and her cultural heritage are necessary for Tina to access and

159 establish membership in the dominant social group of which her friend Hope and Hope’s famous grandfather are, presumably, established members.

Of note, although Tina shifts her attitudes and behaviors over the course of the story, she is nonetheless cast in the same lot as the bully Tete in Anzaldúa’s Friends from the Other Side. Per many of the comments about bullying, Tete is likewise diagnosed as having an individual prejudice disorder by which he is cruel and harasses Joaquin for no apparent reason. Just as in the responses to Abuelito Eats with His Fingers, none of the

PTs recognize that Tete is an acculturated manifestation of American institutionalized prejudice against Mexican immigrants. This is despite the fact that in her author’s note to readers, Anzaldúa alludes to the way some people in the U.S. call Mexican immigrants

“wetbacks.” Like Tina, who is initially loyal to the hegemony of American Discourse,

Tete rejects foreigners and rebuffs any association with his Mexican heritage. Unlike

Tina, however, Tete does not transcend his behavior over the course of the story.

Comparison Across Books

Survey findings indicate that two and a half times more respondents connected to

In My Family than to Friends from the Other Side. See Figure 7.

160

=/831#(+$>1##/>?1#$01$-11@3$

")#$ !"#$ %&#$ !)#$

%)#$

'(#$ *)#$

')#$

)#$ !"#$%&$'()*+&!$ !,-./+*01$2(03$4*05$6*3$ !'8*/#93$:81)$05/$;05/8$ '*#7/83!$ <*9/!$

Figure 7. Respondents’ Personal Connection to Books.

While in Abuelito Eats with His Fingers and In My Family the respondents’ personal connections generally regarded experiences with grandparents, family, and family traditions, the respondents’ personal connections to Friends from the Other Side were about experiences of being bullied or standing up for other people. Table 15 highlights the most popular themes in each of the books for a side-by-side comparison:

Table 15. Most Popular Themes. In My Family: % Culture/traditions 46% Personal connection to story 45% Family life, traditions, relationships, childhood 40% Friends from the Other Side: % Immigration 55% Helping and/or treating people who are different/in need with kindness 24% Standing-up to bullying/being brave 24% Abuelito Eats with His Fingers % Comments about Tina and Abuelito 64% Personal connection to story 39% Communication/language 17%

161

More comparisons between the books will be made in the upcoming discussions of Research Questions 3 and 4. To summarize, the themes of family and cultural difference were prominent among the PT responses to In My Family. In addition to the varying themes on immigration, which necessitate knowledge of the national

Conversation about undocumented immigration, respondents to Friends from the Other

Side focused on the themes of morality in helping others and standing up to bullies.

Finally, nearly half of the PTs were interested in the development of Tina’s relationship with her grandfather in Abulelito Eats with His Fingers.

Research Question Three

What kinds of stances/subject-positions (Beach, 1997) do prospective teachers adopt in considering the use of each book in their future classrooms? The next section discusses the data that was collected from the PTs’ written responses to the post-reading question: “Would you use this book (In My Family;

Friends from the Other Side; Abuelito Eats with His Fingers) in your future classroom?

Why or why not?” This question, as well as Research Question 4, requires the PTs to run what Gee (2011) calls a prototypical simulation in their minds, in which they envision themselves teaching in their future classrooms. Prototypical simulations provide a means for us to think about and prepare for in-the-moment and future interactions in the world.

Using the example of a wedding, Gee (2011) suggests that the simulations we create in our minds are not “neutral.” They are actually perspectives or worldviews about what one construes to be a “typical” wedding, which differs from one social or cultural group to the next. According to Gee (2011): 162

Since we take the prototype simulations to capture what is “typical,” we often use

these prototypes to judge features of our more special-purpose simulations [such

as a wedding between two men]. . . . Simulations are the way the mind handles

figured worlds. . . . In many cases, individuals do not know all the elements of a

figured world, but get parts of it from books, media, or other people as they need

to know more. (p. 81)

In asking the PTs whether they would use the books in the classroom, they might have to run a more special-purpose simulation for using books that regard experiences and social customs that may be unfamiliar to them or may relate to heated national

Conversations about immigration and/or the role of religion in public education as examined in Research Question 4. Because the PTs may not know all of the elements of a figured world for teaching with books like In My Family, Friends from the Other Side, and Abuelito Eats with His Fingers, they might rely on what they can infer from other people, media, and the social practices around them. PTs might especially rely on the models of their former K–12 teachers by tapping into their personal educational histories

(Britzman, 1986) or apprenticeships of observation (Lortie, 1975) to construe a figured world for using these books. When the sources of the PTs’ inferences share the same social, cultural, and/or political views as the PT, they could reinforce the PTs’ pre- existing perspectives rather than challenge or offer alternative lenses to their figured worlds for what is “typical” or “normal.”

163

In My Family

The PTs were asked whether they would use the book, In My Family, in their future classroom. The majority of respondents (74%) said that they would be willing to use this book, 11 (13%) respondents answered negatively and 11 (13%) respondents said that they would use the book under certain conditions (“I would be more willing to use this if I have students from Mexico or who celebrate these traditions”). See Figure 9 below.

3)42.$5)4$4#"$67-$85$91:/256$/-$5)4;$<4=4;"$ >21##;)):?$

()$ *+'$ ,)-./0)-12$ *+'$ !"#$ %&'$

Figure 8. Respondents’ Willingness to Use Book In My Family in Their Future Classroom.

Arguments for using book in the classroom. As described above, 74% of the

PTs see themselves using In My Family in their simulations for future classroom teaching. Below, Table 16 describes the respondents’ arguments. Among this group, the most popular reasons for using In My Family would be to discuss family life, traditions, relationships, and/or familial childhood experiences (48%); and to foster cultural

164 awareness among their students (40%). For example, in terms of using the book to discuss families, one PT writes, “I would use In My Family in my future classroom because I think it provides readers with the importance of spending time with family.”

Another offers, “I would use this book in my classroom because I feel this book does a great job of illustrating a close knit family and explaining the importance of family to students.” In terms of using the book to foster cultural awareness, a respondents states “I would [use In My Family], for several reasons. It is a great way to teach about Mexican culture. The students would be able to relate well many of the main events that were discussed in the story.” Another adds, “I think it would be a good book to talk about different cultures of families such as Hispanic.” It is noteworthy that these two latter responses, as examples of several other responses, seem to reflect a figured world in which Carmen Lomas-Garza’s family members who are depicted in In My Family represent Mexican and Hispanic culture but not Mexican-American culture.

165

Table 16. Respondents Arguments for Using the Book In My Family in Their Future Classroom. Respondents I would use In My Family in the my future classroom: (Total 61) To foster cultural awareness: 40 (66%) • General 24 (39%) • Mexican/Hispanic/Latino 15 (25%) • Mexican-American 1 (2%) To discuss family life, traditions, relationships, childhood: 29 (48%) • General 25 (41%) • Mexican/Hispanic/Latino 3 (5%) • Mexican-American 1 (2%) Because I like the style/format/content of book 10 (16%) Because book is relatable/interesting for the reader: 7 (12%) • General 6 (10%) • Traditions/holidays 1 (2%) To reinforce acceptance/respect for others 2 (3%) To teach Spanish language 2 (3%)

Arguments against using book in the classroom. The respondents who would not use the book in their future classroom said that the book was outside the scope of what they would like to teach (36%), that students might find it difficult to relate to such a book (36%) or that they personally did not like the format/style of the book (36%). For a full list of arguments, see Table 17.

Table 17. Respondents Arguments against Using the Book In My Family in Their Future Classroom. Respondents I would not use In My Family in the my future classroom: (Total 11) Students might not relate/be interested in story 4 (36%) Outside the scope of what I would like to teach 4 (36%) Because I dislike the style/format/content of book 4 (36%) Not exciting 3 (27%)

166

The PTs in this group would exclude In My Family from their future classrooms because: (a) “I believe my class could lose interest in the text. The paintings are very well done, but I feel as though the content itself lacks the excitement to keep my class entertained;” (b) “I believe a teacher should be as excited about a book as they want their students to be. . . . I just couldn't really get into this;” and finally because (c) “it only talks about one place and one way families are; not all the different ways families can be. Also this book makes you think this is how all the families in Texas are like this, which is not true.” These future teachers seem to adopt stances of resistance (Beach, 1997), which reflect the beliefs and attitudes these PTs apply to the text and may be influenced by their membership in certain groups. In this case, it appears that the three PTs mentioned here

(two white women and one white man under age 23) share a common membership in the dominant social group.

The first two responses (a & b) seem to reflect a simulated figured world in which the PTs’ future students will also be members of their same social group. Thus, the students will likewise find the book uninteresting. As discussed in Chapter 2, this type of logic is sometimes employed by teachers to censor certain works of multicultural literature from the classroom. Here, these two PTs seem to adopt a Curriculum First stance. For them, it seems that the curriculum needs to be entertaining and personally interesting. Consequently, books that do not meet this requirement may be excluded from the classroom. In presuming that a book will not entertain their future students, these PTs might also assume a Not in My Back Yard (NIMBY) stance. This stance, discussed in Chapter 2, is founded on the beliefs that teachers know every aspect of their

167 students’ lives and that the use of certain types of multicultural literature is only warranted when the students are able to “get into” and see their own reflections in the texts. From the NIMBY stance, certain works of multicultural children’s literature are subject to censorship because they serve as windows to unfamiliar territory rather than entertaining mirrors of students’ lives (Sims Bishop, 1994).

Response “c,” which argues that In My Family “makes you think . . . all the families in Texas are like this [Garza’s family], which is not true,” suggests that this PT has a strong notion of who Texans are. In her figured world, “typical” or “normal” Texan families do not seem to include Mexican-American families like Garza’s. It seems that for this future teacher, books that present “atypical” perspectives on who lives in states like Texas would be censored. The data does not indicate whether this respondent would conditionally use In My Family in conjunction with other picture books that show

“typical” Texan families.

Conditions for using the book in the classroom. In the remaining group, 11 respondents said that they would use the book under certain conditions. See Table 18 below for the list of conditions and sample responses.

168

Table 18. Respondents’ Conditions for Using In My Family in Their Future Classroom. Number of Condition Rationale (Example) respondents Context of social “If I were to use this book I would present this story sciences: with others that depict many different cultures as 4 history/cultural well.” studies “Yes if the children are young because they would Grade level love the pictures. But the story may get sort of boring 4 because each story goes the same on each page.” If required or “I’m not really sure what unit I'd use this book with, supportive of but if I had some curriculum that it related to I would 2 curriculum/conte use it.” nt standards Student “I would consider using In my Family in my population classroom. I would be more willing to use this if I (ESL/Spanish 1 have students from Mexico or who celebrate these speakers/ traditions.” Mexican)

Among the respondents in this group, some would consider using In My Family if they were: studying different cultures, teaching younger students, satisfying curriculum

/content standard requirements, or working with students of Mexican heritage.

Collectively, these conditions for use also serve as conditions for excluding books like In

My Family from the classroom. Inferring from the nature of the conditions, it seems that the most common conditions regard the PTs’ figured worlds around how and why teachers select materials for the classroom. Here, it appears that these PTs might be prone to privilege books that enliven the content of their lessons by adopting what I will call a “Curriculum First” stance. As discussed in Chapter 2, in their studies of preservice teachers’ literature selections, Jipson and Paley (1991) and Luke, Cooke, and Luke

(1986) observed similar patterns. The participants in their studies were also concerned with meeting teaching goals. Hence, they were more likely to select books that reflected

169 their passive ideologies (Hollindale, 1988), i.e. figured worlds to most efficiently facilitate their objectives. Selecting books that present alternative perspectives on the world was not a priority.

The last condition in this group, by which the PT might only select In My Family if she had students “from Mexico,” suggests that this PT might also adopt the NIMBY stance. It seems that for her, if a member of her classroom community is Mexican, then she would be more apt to select literature that provides a mirror for that child.

Alternately, she might be less inclined to select books for her future students that provide windows to worldviews and experiences that may be atypical of her figured world.

Friends from the Other Side

The PTs were asked whether they would use the book Friends From The Other

Side in their future classroom. Out of 83 respondents the majority (70%) responded positively, 10 (12%) respondents said that they would use the book under certain conditions, 7 (8%) were not sure about using this particular book and 8 (10%) respondents answered negatively. See Figure 9 below.

170

7)8/+$4)8$8#"$9:;,"*+#$<;)=$>?"$@>?";$A,+"9$,*$ 4)8;$<8>8;"$B/.##;))=C$

3.45"$ 6'$ 2)$ 0&'$ !"#$ %&'$ ()*+,-)*./$ 01'$

Figure 9. Respondents’ Willingness to Use Friends from the Other Side in Their Future Classroom.

Arguments for using book in the classroom. As described above, 70% of the

PTs are willing to use Friends from the Other Side in their future classrooms. When asked to explain rationale for using the book in their future classroom, nearly one third of respondents (29%) said that they would use it to reinforce the importance of accepting and respecting others. (See Table 19 below.) Their responses included statements such as:

“I think it [the book] would be a good way to show children that they can be friends with people who are different than themselves. It also shows them that you must treat everyone with respect;” and “It’s a good lesson to children that not everyone is the same but everyone deserves respect and help.”

171

Table 19. Arguments for Using the Book Friends from the Other Side in the Future Classroom. Respondents I would use Friends from the Other Side: (Total 58) To reinforce acceptance/respect for others 17 (29%) To talk about immigration: 16 (28%) • General 6 (10%) • Hardship/struggle in life (Mexican immigrant) 5 (9%) • Alternative perspective 4 (7%) • Historical issue 4 (7%) • Causes 4 (7%) • To talk about immigration (border patrol) 2 (3%) • To talk about Mexican immigration 1 (2%) To promote moral development: standing-up to bullying/being brave 15 (26%) To foster cultural awareness: 15 (26%) • General 11 (19%) • Mexican/Hispanic/Latino 4 (7%) To talk about friendship: 15 (26%) • General 9 (12%) • With people who are different 3 (5%) • Friends help/support each other 3 (5%) Because students should know about national/regional issues 10 (17%) To talk about helping and/or treating people who are different/in need with 8 (14%) kindness To reveal racism/discrimination 3 (5%) To talk about hardship/struggle in life (Mexican) 2 (3%) Book is suitable for ESL/Mexican/Spanish-speaking readers 1 (2%) Because I like the style/format/content of book 1 (2%) To talk about overcoming challenges 1 (2%)

Arguments against using book in the classroom. The eight respondents who said they would not use Friends from the Other Side in their future classrooms, provided a variety of arguments to support their exclusion of the book. (See Table 20 below.)

172

Table 20. Arguments against Using Friends From the Other Side in the Future Classroom. I would not use Friends from the Other Side: Respondents (8) Risky/controversial topic (immigration) 3 (38%) Outside the scope of what I would like to teach 2 (25%) Questionable content: unlawful character behavior 2 (25%) Topic is not for kids (immigration) 2 (25%) Because I dislike style/format/content of book 2 (25%) Parent/community disapproval 1 (13%) Students might not relate/be interested in story 1 (13%)

As described in the table and reflected in the following responses, a few were concerned that the topic of immigration would be too controversial and/or too mature for children: “I think this book would be tough to use in a classroom because there is such a debate on illegal immigrants already, and I’m not sure how to talk about it in a simple way for children to understand;” and “I think that it is a good book, but I think that I would have to explain a lot of different elements in it to the kids. It would be a challenge to talk about these things in a politically correct way.” These PTs’ rationales for censoring Friends from the Other Side from their future classrooms could suggest that in their simulations for teaching, they might not have any models for construing how a teacher might address political issues with children. Thus, their figured worlds may be incomplete. As discussed in Chapter 2, inexperience and incomplete knowledge about how to read and discuss multicultural literature with children lead to avoidance

(Escamilla & Nathenson-Meja, 2003; Ketter & Lewis, 2001; Montero & Robertson,

2006; Smith, 2002).

173

Moreover, their concern with being “politically correct,” could, as described in

Chapter 2, reflect their awareness that as members of the dominant social group it is not

“normal” to draw attention to the fact that social inequities have and continue to exist between the dominant and subordinate cultural groups in the U.S. As Gee (2008) points out criticism of the dominant Discourse might ultimately render a person who takes an alternative perspective as being deviant. Hence, it is easiest to avoid books like Friends from the Other Side, which offer an alternative perspective that challenges the dominant

Discourse. As discussed in Chapter 2, it is not uncommon for teachers to avoid books that could cause controversy and alarm parents (Ketter & Lewis, 2001; Schmidt,

Armstrong, & Everett, 2007; Smith, 2002).

In alignment with the PTs who are concerned about political correctness, the two

PTs who would censor Friends from the Other Side due to questionable content appear to share similar attitudes toward challenging the dominant Discourse. They argue: “I would be hesitant to use this book in the classroom for the one reason that Prietita and the herb women helped to hide illegal immigrants from border patrol. . . . It could also be considered illegal what Prietita and the herb women did, which could upset parents and make the students think it is okay to break the law in certain situations;” and “[T]hey are doing wrong by hiding these people [Joaquin and his mother] from the police. I want my classroom to know that lying is bad, so I won't bring this into the classroom.” These respondents adopt the Law Abiding Citizen stance, previously introduced in Chapter 2.

Just like the preservice teachers in Escamilla and Nathenson-Mejia’s (2003) study who also took a Law Abiding Citizen stance in response to Friends from the Other Side, the

174

PTs in this study reject Anzaldúa’s book because Prietita’s and the Herb Woman’s behaviors are atypical among members of the dominant social group. These characters are thereby construed as being “deviant” and exposure to them could be unacceptable. In taking this stance of resistance, censorship undermines the objectives for using multicultural literature to help students understand multiple perspectives.

Arguments of undecided prospective teachers. Seven respondents stated that they were unsure about using Friends from the Other Side in their future classroom. (See

Table 21.) Like other respondents, these PTs see the potential for using this book with their students to examine the topics of immigration, helping others, and developing moral fiber. These respondents, however, are also concerned that immigration is a controversial topic and they may not have the background knowledge to discuss it. As discussed in the preceding section, by excluding books like Friends from the Other Side from the classroom, teachers avoid discomfort and controversy.

Table 21. Rationale of Undecided Respondents.

I am not sure if I would use Friends from the Other Side. If I Respondents did I might use the book: (Total 7) To talk about immigration: 3 (43%) • General 1 (14%) • Undocumented/illegal 1 (14%) • Negative social discourse 1 (14%) To talk about helping and/or treating people who are different/in 2 (29%) need with kindness To promote moral development: standing-up to bullying/being 2 (29%) brave To reinforce acceptance/respect for others 1 (14%) Because I like the style/format/content of book 1 (14%) Rationale for uncertainty (when provided): Outside the scope of what I would like to teach 2 (29%) Risky/controversial topic (immigration) 2 (29%) I do not have enough background knowledge (about immigration) 1 (14%)

175

In terms of limited background knowledge, the PT who submits, “I am not sure that I would use this book in a classroom. I personally do not feel educated enough on the topic of immigration to be able to answer any questions that may arise,” is not alone.

Mentioned previously, Botelho and Rudman (2009) report that several scholars discuss the ways some teachers sidestep multicultural children’s literature due to limited background knowledge. Apol, Sakuma, Reyonlds, and Rop (2003) and Smith (2002) found that the teachers stray away from unfamiliar content in multicultural children’s literature. Similarly, Escamilla and Nathenson-Meja (2003) observed that the preservice teachers in their study felt unqualified to discuss the cultural aspects of the Latino children’s literature. This connection between teachers’ knowledge and comfort in leading discussions is consistent with Shulman’s (1987) and Grossman’s (1990) findings that the level of teachers’ subject matter knowledge informs the content teachers will teach, as well as the process and/or pedagogy by which they will teach, as discussed in

Chapter 2. In this scenario, the PT’s lack of knowledge influences her rejection of the book for classroom use.

Conditions for discussing book in the classroom. Finally, nine respondents said that they would use the Friends from the Other Side under certain conditions. See Table

22.

176

Table 22. Respondents’ Conditions for Discussing Friends from the Other Side in Their Future Classroom. Number of Condition Rationale (Example) respondents “I would use the story with younger students and focus on the fact that a girl helped and saved her friend. I Grade level would not use the book with older students because I 6 wouldn't want the topic to get too ‘political’ and spark a volatile debate.” If required or supportive of “I think I would use it if it would fit into my lesson the 2 curr/content right way.” standards Student “I would use this book in my class if I had bilingual population students to help them see… the English and the 1 (ESL/Spanish Spanish.” speakers/Mexican)

It is interesting to note that 60% of the PTs who would use this book under certain conditions are concerned with age and grade level of their students. On one hand, some

PTs could see themselves using the book specifically with younger students to focus on

“the fact that a girl helped and saved her friend,” and “the message the book sends about helping others.” On the other hand, some PTs would only use the book with older students who: “would be mature enough to comprehend the topic at hand;” “would have a better understanding of the story;” “could see that yes, bullying is wrong no matter what, but no, traveling somewhere illegally is not necessarily right;” or who “would be able to understand the political and social aspects of it.” Implicit in these responses are the PTs’ assumptions (figured worlds) about the capacity of younger students to engage in discussions about immigration. Those who plan to work with younger students would only discuss the themes of friendship and helping others. Those who would discuss immigration would only do so with older students. It appears that the PTs have adopted a 177

Protector of Children stance of resistance that underpins their assumptions about age- appropriate content. By adopting this stance, in the teachers’ figured worlds, school is a haven from reality. In this haven, certain works of multicultural children’s literature are avoided to protect children’s innocence (Schmidt, Armstrong, & Everett, 2007) and/or to prevent children from becoming corrupted by worldly topics (Wollman-Bonilla, 1998).

One of the dangers in adopting the Protector of Children stance lies in the assumption that teachers know everything there is to know about their students to determine whether or not a book like Friends from the Other Side might tarnish the children’s innocence or provide context for the real world issues that surround them from a young age. An incongruence is manifested via this stance in that adults who wish to protect children from real world issues may also be inclined to diagnose the very same children with disorders such as individual prejudice.

Abuelito Eats with His Fingers

Survey respondents were asked whether they would use Abuelito Eats With His

Fingers in their future classroom. The majority (80%) said yes, 10 (12%) respondents answered negatively, 4 (5%) respondents said they might use the book under certain conditions, 2 were undecided, and one respondent did not answer the question. See

Figure 10 below.

178

:);2.$5);$;#"$<=6;"2/>)$?1>#$@/>A$B/#$C/-D"E#<$/-$ 5);E$F;>;E"$G21##E))HI$

()-78"#9)-#"$ *'$ 4156"$ +'$ ,)-./0)-12$ 3'$ !"#$ ()$ %&'$ *+'$

Figure 10. Respondents’ Willingness to Use Abuelito Eats with His Fingers in Their Future Classroom.

Arguments for using book in the classroom. Sixty-six of the PTs (80%) said they would use Abuelito Eats with His Fingers in their future classrooms. (See Table 23). Of this group, nearly one third (32%) of the respondents suggested that they would use the book to reinforce the importance of accepting and respecting others. Their responses included comments such as, I would use the book because: “I would teach my students to get to know someone before making assumptions or pass judgment of someone who are different from them;” and “It's a great way to help kids realize that sometimes they need to get to know someone before making judgments about them;” and “it shows how just because someone is different and does things differently than you, that doesn't mean they are weird. It shows how a person can change their opinion of a person after spending a little time with them.”

179

Table 23. Respondents’ Arguments for Using Abuelito Eats with His Fingers in Their Future Classroom. Respondents I would use Abuelito Eats with His Fingers: (Total 66) To reinforce acceptance/respect for others 21 (32%) To teach appreciation/importance of family 15 (23%) Because book is relatable/interesting for the reader 14 (21%) • General 8 (12%) • Grandparents 5 (8%) • Feelings/experiences 1 (2%) To foster cultural awareness: 12 (18%) • General 11 (17%) • Mexican/Hispanic/Latino 1 (2%) To show that elders are source of knowledge/should be respected 8 (12%) To discuss family life, traditions, relationships, childhood (general) 8 (12%) To talk about communication/language 6 (9%) Because I like the style/format/content of book 4 (6%) Book has/promotes a good message/lesson 3 (5%) Book is not risky 2 (3%) Personal connection 2 (3%) To talk about generations 2 (3%) Book has curriculum/standards connections 1 (2%) To talk about hardship/struggle in life (Mexican immigrant) 1 (2%) To teach Spanish language 1 (2%)

Nearly a quarter (23%) of respondents would use the book to talk about family, family traditions, relationships, and childhood. Their responses included comments such as, the book: “shows the importance of spending time with family;” shows how

“everyone has a different family and that all members are fun and important;” and reminds readers “to be thankful for . . . [the family] you have.” Approximately 21% found the content of the story to be interesting and relatable while 12% of the PTs said that they would use the book to foster students’ cultural awareness. Respondents submitted that they would use the book because: “it has the ability to introduce readers to

180 a culture and tradition outside of their own comfort zone;” and “It would be good to use in a lesson where you teach about different cultures. It would help the students understand that all cultures are different, but more importantly special!”

Arguments against using book in the classroom. Among the 10 respondents who stated that they would not use Abuelito Eats with His Fingers, 20% did not recognize any possible connections to their primary (K–2) level curriculum. (See Table

24, below.) “Other than it being a touching story about a Granddaughter and her grandfather, I don’t believe I would use this book in class. I don’t feel like it adds any value to a discussion. . . . [S]ince I want to teach first grade, I don’t believe that they [first graders] would grasp the information as well as older grades would,” reports one prospective primary grade teacher. In the words of another, “I don't think I would really use this book in my classroom. It wouldn't really cover anything that needs to be taught in the classroom, at least not the age I want to teach.” It seems that in the figured worlds of these two PTs, a book like Abuelito Eats with His Fingers meshes neither with their notions of a K – 2 curriculum nor with their assumptions about young children’s capacities for understanding characters’ real-world feelings in a story.

Table 24. Respondents’ Arguments against Using Abuelito Eats with His Fingers in Their Future Classroom. Respondents I would not use Abuelito Eats with His Fingers: (Total 10) I dislike style/format/content of book 3 (30%) Outside the scope of what I would like to teach 3 (30%) No connection to curriculum/standards 2 (20%) Students might not relate/be interested in story 2 (20%) I would not discuss religion 1 (10%)

181

Like the PTs who would not use In My Family, these two future teachers also seem to adopt a stance that selection of children’s literature for the classroom rests on its efficacy for attaining curricular objectives. Literature that provides alternative perspectives, which could result in “off-topic” discussion, might not be as desirable as literature that is consistent with the dominant social group’s perspectives and taken-for- granted assumptions about what is “normal.” Although real and relatable, Tina’s relationship with her grandfather is atypical. Hence the use of Abuelito Eats with His

Fingers could be more distracting than the use of a book that does not deviate from the norms.

Aligned with their cohorts who do not see a place for this book in the primary grade curriculum, 20% of those who would not use Abulelito Eats with His Fingers also suggest that the book is not relatable to students. For example, a respondent writes, “No

[I wouldn’t use the book] because I don't think it would catch the attention of many students.” It is interesting to note that both of the PTs who think the book would be unrelatable to students also plan to become primary grade teachers. Collectively, 40% of the PTs who would exclude Abulelito Eats with His Fingers from their classroom argue that the book does not correspond with the needs or interests of young children.

Arguments of undecided prospective teachers. Two respondents stated that they were not sure about using the book in their classroom. The first is not sure how to connect the book to his middle school curriculum. The second is concerned that the book featured a topic that might be difficult to discuss in a classroom, that is, Abuelito’s religious statues and candles. This future teacher writes, “I don't know if I would use this

182 point because it has so many religious things going on it. I think that you would have to do a lot of explaining to children about things.” For him, the prospect of addressing the presence of Abuelito’s statues and candles could be daunting.

Conditions for using book in the classroom. Four respondents said that they would use the book under certain conditions. (See Table 25.) Two of the four respondents would use the book in the context of studying cultures. The other two would use the book if, in their figured worlds for teaching, their student populations are inclusive of Spanish speakers or are comprised of older children who might be able to relate to Tina’s perspective.

Table 25. Respondents’ Conditions for Using Abuelito Eats with His Fingers in Their Future Classroom. Number of Condition Rationale (Example) respondents Context of cultural “If I was doing a Mexico theme then I would 2 studies (Mexican) say that I would use it.” Student population “I would be likely to use this book if I had (ESL/Spanish 1 students who spoke different languages.” speakers/Mexican) “Yes I would use this in an older classroom Grade level when children start to not like to hang out with 1 their families.” Cross Analysis

Common arguments across the books. The PTs’ arguments for using each book, as illustrated in Table 26 below, are specific to the content of each book. The theme of family was prominent to the responses for In My Family and Abuelito Eats with

His Fingers. The theme of cultural awareness was relevant to the responses for In My

Family and Friends from the Other Side, while the theme of accepting and respecting others was common to Friends from the Other Side and Abuelito Eats with His Fingers.

183

Table 26. Most Popular Arguments for Using the Books in Respondents’ Future Classroom. In My Family: % To foster cultural awareness 66% To discuss family life, traditions, relationships, childhood 48% I like style/format/content of book 16% Friends from the Other Side: To reinforce acceptance/respect for others 29% To talk about immigration 28% To promote moral development: stand-up to bullying/being brave 26% To foster cultural awareness 26% To talk about friendship 26% Abuelito Eats with His Fingers: To reinforce acceptance/respect for others 32% To teach appreciation/importance of family 23% The book is relatable/interesting for the reader 21%

Common arguments against using book in the classroom. As illustrated in

Table 27 below, there were similarities to the PTs’ rationales for avoiding the use of the books in the classroom. Aside from being outside of the scope of some prospective middle school and high school teachers’ subject areas, the only common rationale that the

PTs provided across the books was a personal dislike for the content, style, or format of the texts. Those who would not use In My Family generally disliked the photo album quality of the picture book. Those who would not use Friends from the Other Side were turned off by the ending of the story, which they felt was incomplete. Those who would not use Abuelito Eats with His Fingers either disliked the message of the text (i.e. “Tina only obeys and starts to like Abuelito when he gives her something big like a pearl necklace”) or felt that a different book would better support their objectives (i.e. “I would

184 try and look for a different book that showed the relationships between grandparents and grandchildren”).

Table 27. Most Popular Arguments against Using the Books in the Future Classroom.

In My Family: % Students might not relate/be interested in story 36% I dislike style/format/content of book 36% Outside the scope of what I would like to teach 36% Friends from the Other Side: Risky/controversial topic (immigration) 38% Outside the scope of what I would like to teach 25% Questionable content: unlawful character behavior 25% Topic is not for kids (immigration) 25% I dislike style/format/content of book 25% Abuelito Eats with His Fingers: I dislike style/format/content of book 40% Outside the scope of what I would like to teach 30% No curriculum/standards connections 20% Students might not relate/be interested in story 20%

Although the PTs other rationales for censorship vary from book to book, the nature of some of the PTs’ arguments originate from mutually held theories or figured worlds about who their future students are or what their future curriculum and content will be. For example, the PTs who argue that their future students might not enjoy or relate to In My Family or Abuelito Eats with His Fingers seem to base their assertions on taken-for-grated assumptions that their students will, like the PTs, also be members of the dominant cultural group and might not make any connections to these books.

Congruently, the PTs who speculate that the content of Friends from the Other Side might not be appropriate for children or that the content of Abuelito Eats with His

Fingers might not fit with the curriculum for primary grades also seem to found their

185 speculations on figured worlds that exclude texts that deviate from the norms of the dominant social group.

Common conditions for use of the books. The conditions that some PTs apply to their prospective use of the books are consistent across the books. (See Table 28, below.)

Table 28. Most Popular Conditions for Using the Books in the Future Classroom.

In My Family (11 respondents) CON: Grade level CON: Context of social sciences: history/cultural studies CON: If required or supportive of curriculum/content standards CON: Student population (ESL/Spanish speakers/Mexican) CON: Surface level information Friends from the Other Side (10 respondents) CON: Grade level CON: If required or supportive of curriculum/content standards CON: Student population (ESL/Spanish speakers/Mexican) Abuelito Eats with His Fingers (4 respondents) CON: Context of cultural studies (Mexican) CON: Grade level CON: Student population (ESL/Spanish speakers/Mexican)

For each title there were respondents who were concerned about the age- appropriateness of the story content. Some PTs adopted a Protector of Children stance to establish conditions around the types of discussions they would have with their future students if they were to use the books. While some PTs might, for example, focus only on the themes of friendship and helping others in using Friends from the Other Side with younger students, other PTs might only use Abuelito Eats with His Fingers with older students who might appreciate Tina’s reticence to going to her grandfather’s house.

186

Across the books, some respondents were also prone to set parameters around context of under which they would use the books. First, in some PTs’ figured worlds of their future classrooms, the books must facilitate curriculum objectives. Second, the composition of the student population must merit the use of the books. If the student populations do not include Latinos or Spanish speakers, or if other books can enliven the class lessons without engaging in messy discussions about characters’ perspectives, then books like In My Family, Friends from the Other Side, and Abuelito Eats with His

Fingers may well be excluded from the classroom. For an analysis of this data by grate level, see Appendix M.

Research Question Four

What is the likelihood that prospective teachers would discuss with their future students the religious content of the books in this study? The data that was collected for this research question, “What is the likelihood that

PTs would discuss with their future students the religious content of each of the books in this study?” was drawn from two sources. First, it was drawn from the PTs’ responses to an introductory course survey during Week 1 in which the PTs were asked: “How likely would you select for your class lesson a children’s book that presents worldviews or spiritual ideas that differ from mainstream American culture?” Second, data was drawn from the PTs’ written responses to the following queries about the specific picture books:

(a) “If you were to use In My Family with your future students, how likely would you discuss the religious significance of the water tank painting, “The Miracle”? Please explain your rationale;” (b) “If you were to use Friends from the Other Side with your future students, how comfortable would you feel in discussing the religious significance 187 of some of the paintings and artifacts in the herb woman’s bedroom? Please explain your rationale;” and (c) If you were to use Abuelito Eats with His Fingers with your future students, how likely would you initiate a discussion about the meaning of the candles and statues in Abuelito’s house? Please explain your rationale.”

Alternative Worldviews/Spiritual Ideas

As part of an introductory survey, during Week 1 of children’s literature course, the PTs were asked how likely they would be to select a children’s book featuring worldviews or spiritual ideas different from mainstream American culture. See Appendix

I for the complete Week 1 survey. Three out of four (76%) respondents said that they would be very likely (25%) or somewhat likely (51%) to select such a book. Eighteen percent of all respondents would be somewhat unlikely (16%) or very unlikely (2%) to select such a book. Five respondents did not answer this question. See Figure 11.

&'(")'.++8%+9%8'6:;66'2<%/%=++(%9"/0;#'2<% /)0"#2/>?"%-+#)8?'"-6@67'#'0;/)%'8"/6%

&'#$ "%#$ "'#$

)'#$

('#$ !"#$

!'#$ %&#$

%'#$ &#$ !#$ '#$ !"#$%&'(")$% *+,"-./0% *+,"-./0% !"#$%12)'(")$% 3+245"67+26"% &'(")$% 12)'(")$%

Figure 11. Likelihood of Selecting a Book Featuring Worldviews and Spiritual Ideas Different from the Mainstream American.

188

In My Family

Respondents were asked how likely they would be to discuss the religious significance of the water tank painting “The Miracle.” Most of the survey participants said that they would be very likely (7%) or somewhat likely (54%) to do that. Thirty-nine percent of all respondents would be very unlikely (10%) or somewhat unlikely (29%) to discuss the religious significance of the painting. See Figure 12 below.

3+-%)'(")$%-+4)5%$+4%5'67466%89."%:'#/7)"8;%%

+)"# $%"#

$)"#

%)"#

&'"# *)"#

&)"# ()"# ()"# !"#

)"# !"#$%&'(")$% *+,"-./0%&'(")$% *+,"-./0%12)'(")$% !"#$%12)'(")$%

Figure 12. Likelihood of Discussing Religious Significance of the Water Tank Painting “The Miracle” from In My Family.

Arguments for discussing the significance of “The Miracle” from In My

Family. When asked to explain their rationale for discussing religious significance of

“The Miracle,” about one quarter (24%) of respondents said that they would do it to encourage students’ religious awareness (“I would likely discuss it because it would help children learn that there are other religions out there and not just the ones that they know

189 and to help them not downgrade or look down upon that religion just because it isn't the same”), nearly one fifth (18%) of respondents would discuss “The Miracle” in order to foster students’ cultural awareness (“Everyone comes from a different background and everyone should be able to know that not everyone’s the same”). For a full list of arguments, see Table 29.

Table 29. Arguments for Discussing Religious Significance of “The Miracle” from In My Family.

Respondents I would discuss religious significance of “The Miracle”: (Total 83) To encourage religious awareness 20 (24%) To foster cultural awareness: 15 (18%) • General 11 (13%) • Mexican/Hispanic/Latino 4 (5%) It is important to acknowledge religious significance 10 (12%) To reinforce acceptance/respect for others 5 (6%) Religion has a place in the curriculum 4 (5%) Religion/religious artifacts – part of culture 4 (5%) To accommodate students’ religious belief 2 (2%) Because I like the style/format/content of book 1 (1%)

Arguments against discussing the significance of “The Miracle” from In My

Family. With respect to arguments against discussing the religious significance of the painting, 14% of all respondents thought that religion is not allowed in public schools,

6% said that religious content was not critical/important for the story, that religion is a risky/controversial topic and that other students’ beliefs should be respected. For a full list of responses, see Table 30.

190

Table 30. Arguments against Discussing Religious Significance of “The Miracle” from In My Family.

I would not discuss religious significance of “The Miracle”: Respondents (Total 83) Little/no religion permitted in public schools 12 (14%) Religious content (visual/textual) is not important to story 5 (6%) Risky/controversial topic (religion) 5 (6%) Respect students' beliefs 5 (6%) I would not discuss religion 4 (5%) I do not have enough background knowledge (about religious 4 (5%) significance) Parents teach religion 4 (5%) Religious significance is not a topic for kids 4 (5%) Parent/community disapproval 4 (5%) Observe separation of Church and State 3 (4%) Religion does not belong in school 2 (2%) Outside the scope of what I would like to teach 2 (2%) Discussing religion makes me uncomfortable/confused 1 (1%) Family/community beliefs are irrational 1 (1%) Topic difficult to discuss (religion) 1 (1%) Unfamiliar beliefs are not important to address 1 (1%) I don't share same beliefs and don't want to diminish other culture 1 (1%) I am concerned about students’ reaction 1 (1%)

Conditions for discussing the significance of “The Miracle” from In My

Family. More than half of all respondents (59%) mentioned conditions under which they would discuss religious significance of the painting “The Miracle.” For a full list of conditions, see Table 31.

191

Table 31. Conditions for Discussing Religious Significance of “The Miracle” from In My Family.

Respondents Conditions: (Total 49) Context restrictions: Context of multiple religions 7 Context of studying pareidolia 5 Context of story/characters/setting 4 Context of social sciences: history/cultural studies 2 Context cultural studies (Mexican) 1 Other conditions: Surface-level information 11 No proselytizing: teach about religion only 8 Factual/objective presentation of religion 6 Student questions/comments 6 Grade level 4 Parent/school/ community approval 2 If required or supportive of curriculum/content standards 2

Friends from the Other Side

Respondents were asked whether they would be comfortable to discuss the religious significance of some of the paintings and artifacts in the herb woman’s bedroom. Survey results show that the respondents were somewhat evenly divided between being comfortable and uncomfortable: 52% would be very or somewhat comfortable, while 48% would be very or somewhat uncomfortable doing that. See

Figure 13.

192

&'()'#*%-"4"-%')%5673877629%:+62;297<+#;)+3*7%62% 0"#,%/'(+2=7%,"5#''(>%

)'"# $%"#

$'"# %$"#

%'"#

('"# &$"# !"# &'"#

'"# !"#$%&'()'#*+,-"% .'("/0+*% .'("/0+*% !"#$%123'()'#*+,-"% &'()'#*+,-"% 123'()'#*+,-"%

Figure 13. Respondents’ Comfort Level of Discussing Paintings and Artifacts in the Herb Woman’s Bedroom from Friends from the Other Side.

Arguments for discussing the herb woman’s bedroom from Friends from the

Other Side. When respondents were asked to explain their rationale for discussing religious significance of the paintings and artifacts in the herb woman’s bedroom, 14% of all respondents said they would do it to encourage religious awareness, 8%—to foster students’ cultural awareness (“Students may not share the herb woman's beliefs, but they should be informed about cultures different from their own”). Six percent thought that discussion was necessary because religion is a part of the culture depicted in the book.

For a full list of arguments, see Table 32.

193

Table 32. Arguments for Discussing Religious Significance of Paintings/Artifacts in the Herb Woman’s Bedroom from Friends from the Other Side.

Respondents I would discuss religious significance of paintings and artifacts: (Total 83) To encourage religious awareness 12 (14%) It is important to acknowledge religious significance 10 (12%) To foster cultural awareness (general) 7 (8%) Religion/religious artifacts: part of culture 5 (6%) To reinforce acceptance/respect for others 3 (4%) Consistent with teacher’s beliefs/notion of faith 2 (2%) Lack of accurate knowledge should not inhibit discussion 1 (1%)

Arguments against discussing the herb woman’s bedroom. With respect to arguments against discussing religious significance of paintings/artifacts in the herb woman’s bedroom, about one fifth (19%) of respondents said that they were not familiar with the religious significance of paintings/artifacts in the herb woman’s bedroom (“I am not totally comfortable using this as a discussion because I don't know how to interpret the pictures in the woman's room”), 12% thought that religious significance was not critical to the story (“I believe that the focus of this book is on the issue of immigration. I feel it is unnecessary and irrelevant to bring in the religious pictures in this background story”), 7%—that religion is a controversial topic. For a full list of responses, see Table

33.

194

Table 33. Arguments against Discussing Religious Significance of Paintings/Artifacts in the Herb Woman’s Bedroom from Friends from the Other Side.

I would not discuss religious significance of paintings and Respondents artifacts: (Total 83) I do not have enough background knowledge (about religious 16 (19%) significance) Religious content (visual/textual) is not important to the story 10 (12%) Risky/controversial topic (religion) 6 (7%) Respect students' beliefs 5 (6%) Observe separation of Church and State 5 (6%) Little/no religion permitted in public schools 4 (5%) Parent/community disapproval 3 (4%) Students might not relate/be interested in story 2 (2%) Discussing religion makes me uncomfortable/confused 2 (2%) Religion does not belong in school 1 (1%) I would not discuss religion 1 (1%) I would not discuss religions that contradict my beliefs 1 (1%) Topic is not for kids (religious significance) 1 (1%) Religion is not exclusive to culture 1 (1%)

Conditions for discussing the herb woman’s bedroom. Thirty-two respondents

(40%) mentioned conditions for discussing religious significance of paintings and artifacts in the herb woman’s bedroom. See Table 34.

195

Table 34. Conditions for Discussing Religious Significance of Paintings/Artifacts in the Herb Woman’s Bedroom from Friends from the Other Side.

Respondents Conditions: (Total 32) Context restrictions: Context of multiple religions 4 Context of social sciences: history/cultural studies 2 Context of story/characters/setting 1 Other conditions: If I did more research 8 Student questions/comments 7 Surface-level information 7 No proselytizing: teach about religion only 5 Factual/objective presentation of religion 2 If required or supportive of curriculum/content standards 1 Parent/school/community approval 1

Abuelito Eats with His Fingers

Survey respondents were asked how likely they would be to discuss religious significance of candles and statues in Abuelito’s house. Survey findings indicate that nearly half (49%) of all respondents would be very likely (8%) or somewhat likely (41%) to discuss religious significance of candles and statues, a little more than half (51%) would be very unlikely (17%) and somewhat unlikely (34%) to engage in such a discussion. See Figure 14 below.

196

3+-%)'(")$%0+%4'56755%#")'8'+75%5'82'96/26"%+:% 6/24)"5%/24%50/07"5;%

*("# $%"# $("# &$"#

&("#

)("# %'"#

!"# %("#

("# !"#$%&'(")$% *+,"-./0%&'(")$% *+,"-./0%12)'(")$% !"#$%12)'(")$%

Figure 14. Likelihood of Discussing Religious Significance of Candles and Statues from Abuelito Eats with His Fingers.

Arguments for discussing the candles and statues. When asked to explain their rationale for discussing candles and statues, 17% of respondents thought religion was an important part of culture and thus should be addressed, 12% said this would help to foster students’ cultural awareness (“The candles and statues would be used to explain different religions and cultures”), 8%—to foster awareness about Mexican culture (“The meaning of the candles and statues is a huge part of Mexican culture and if you are going to have books like this you need to talk to your students about the meaning of it”). For the full list of positive arguments, see Table 35 below.

197

Table 35: Arguments for Discussing Religious Significance of Candles and Statues in Abuelito’s House.

Respondents I would discuss religious significance of candles and statues: (Total 83) To foster cultural awareness: 17 (21%) • General 10 (12%) • Mexican/Hispanic/Latino 7 (8%) Religion/religious artifacts: part of culture 14 (17%) It is important to acknowledge religious significance 13 (16%) To encourage religious awareness 4 (5%) To reinforce acceptance/respect for others 4 (5%) Because candles are less controversial than other artifacts 2 (2%) Because Catholicism is a major U.S. religion 1 (1%)

Arguments against discussing the candles and statues. With respect to arguments against discussing religious significance of candles and statues in Abuelito’s house, 17% of all respondents thought religious significance was not critical to the story

(“I'm not sure I would teach that specific aspect of the book just because I feel like there are a lot of other more significant aspects of the book to focus on”). One in ten respondents (11%) said religion was a risky/controversial topic to discuss, and 7% were not familiar with the religious significance of statues and candles (“I am not quite sure what the candles and statues have to do in the story or what they symbolize”). For a full list of negative arguments, see Table 36.

198

Table 36. Arguments against Discussing Religious Significance of Candles and Statues in Abuelito’s House.

Respondents I would not discuss religious significance of candles and statues: (Total 83) Religious content (visual/textual) is not important to the story 14 (17%) Risky/controversial topic (religion) 9 (11%) I do not have enough background knowledge (about religious 6 (7%) significance) Little/no religion permitted in public schools 5 (6%) Observe separation of Church and State 5 (6%) Parental/community disapproval 4 (5%) Students might not relate/be interested in story 3 (4%) Topic is not for kids (religious significance) 3 (4%) I would not discuss religion 2 (2%) Religions does not belong in school 2 (2%) Parents discuss/teach religion 2 (2%) Respect students' beliefs 2 (2%) Discussing religion makes me uncomfortable/confused 1 (1%) I would not discuss religions that contradict my beliefs 1 (1%) Outside the scope of what I would like to teach 1 (1%) Religion is not exclusive to culture 1 (1%) Topic difficult to discuss (religion) 1 (1%)

Conditions for discussing the candles and statues. Thirty-four (41%) of all respondents mentioned conditions under which they would be willing to discuss religious significance of candles and statues in Abuelito’s house. See Table 37.

199

Table 37. Conditions for Discussing Religious Significance of Candles and Statues in Abuelito’s House. Conditions: Respondents (Total 34) Context restrictions: Context of multiple religions 4 Context of cultural studies (Mexican) 2 Context of social sciences: history/cultural studies 1 Other conditions: Student questions/comments 11 Surface level information 10 If I did more research 6 No proselytizing: teach about religion only 2 Grade level 1 Parent/school/community approval 1

Cross Analysis

This section begins with a comparative analysis of the PTs’ likelihood of discussing the significance of the religious content in each book. It will continue with a comparative analysis of the arguments the PTs present and the conditions the PTs establish in favor of or against discussing the significance of the religious content in In

My Family, Friends from the Other Side, and Abuelito Eats with His Fingers. As a point of comparison, this discussion will also regard the PTs’ responses to a Week 1 survey question, “How likely would you select and discuss with your future students a children’s book featuring worldviews or spiritual ideas different from mainstream American culture?”

Likelihood of discussing significance of religious content. Figure 15, below shows a comparison between the PTs’ responses to the Week 1 survey question and to 200 the aforementioned Week 8 questions about discussing the religious significance of the visual content of In My Family, Friends from the Other Side, and Abuelito Eats with His

Fingers.

&'(")'.++8%+9%8'6:;66'2<%/)0"#2/=>"%-+#)8>'"-6?#")'<'+;6% 6'<2'@:/2:"%

*+,-./012-#34.+526-78# 9:;-#<6.0=+-9# 9>-.?#34@0/A8#B-5.44@9# 9C0/5+-8#0/5#D,0,E-89#

)!"# $$"# $!"# ($"# (!"# '$"# '!"# &$"# &!"# %$"# %!"# $"# !"# !"#$%&'(")$% *+,"-./0%&'(")$% *+,"-./0%12)'(")$% !"#$%12)'(")$% 3+245"67+26"%

Figure 15: Likelihood of Discussing Alternative Worldviews/Spiritual Ideas in Comparison with Religious Significance of the Books.

While one fourth (25%) of respondents said they would be very likely to use a book featuring alternative worldviews/spiritual ideas (in response to the Week 1 question:

“How likely would you select for your class a children’s book that presents worldviews or spiritual ideas that differ from mainstream America?”), the respective percentages for the books in the study were about three times lower (7% for In My Family and 8% for

Friends from the Other Side and Abuelito Eats with his Fingers). While only 16% of respondents thought they would be somewhat unlikely to discuss alternative views/spiritual ideas, the number was twofold for Friends from the Other Side and

201

Abuelito Eats with His Fingers. With respect to very unlikely responses, only 2% said that they would select this option for non-mainstream American worldviews/spiritual ideas.

When asked about particular books, the number increased to as high as 17% for Abuelito

Eats with his Fingers. The numbers among the respondents in the somewhat likely group did not vary as much.

One of the primary differences between the Week 1 and the Week 8 questions relates to varying levels of abstraction or proximity of the PTs in relation to the religious content of the books. Hypothetically posed, the first questions ask PTs to mentally simulate a scenario of a discussion of a children’s book that presents a perspective that might differ from mainstream spiritual worldviews. Without any specific information, the PTs have ample space in their figured worlds to conjure a book that accommodates this scenario. Given the nature of the question, many PTs could be very likely to include books in their future classrooms that reflect alternative perspectives. This could account for the PTs’ greater likelihood of discussing an alternative viewpoint in concept than in the context of any of the books.

Among the three books, there are differing levels of abstraction that could limit readers’ proximity to the religious content. Take for example, “The Miracle,” a painting from In My Family that depicts a childhood experience of the author Carmen Lomas

Garza. See Appendix A. In the painting, Garza accompanies her mother and brother to a ranch in Texas where several Tejanos (Texans of Mexican heritage) are gathered before a wooden water tank. In the grain of the wood there appears to be a miraculous image of

La Virgen de Guadalupe. In the caption for this painting, Garza tells her readers that one

202 day, “my mother heard that an image of the Virgin of Guadalupe had appeared. . . . We got in the truck and drove out to see. There was a constant stream of people making pilgrimages to the site, bringing flowers and offerings” (Garza, 1996, p. 21). This scene is presented as a one-time event from Garza’s past. As a historical story, there is a separation of time and space that distances readers from the actual experience. Hence, there is room for PTs to figure a teaching scenario in which many of them are somewhat likely to discuss the religious significance of this event.

In Abuelito Eats with His Fingers, on the other hand, the religious content is not confined to a distinct time and place. In this story, readers are positioned close to the young narrator Tina who provides an in-the-moment first person description of her experience with Abuelito. “Abuelito lights candles and keeps little statues in every room,” (p. 4) Tina explains to readers as they enter Abuelito’s home. Later in the story

Tina attempts to cheer a distressed Abuelito with a drawing. Abuelito stands the drawing on his table of statues. Tina narrates: “Los santos, he [Abuelito] says and introduces each saint with a little bow. Abuelito lights a candle. He closes his eyes and moves his lips. . . . I whisper a prayer. . . . When I open my eyes, the statues are in different places.

Abuelito winks” (p. 18). In being positioned this close, the reader meets Abuelito’s saints when Tina does. The readers, like Tina, are expected to appreciate that the statues and candles are important to Abuelito’s prayer life and religious practices. Given readers’ proximity to Tina, author Janice Levy allows limited space for negotiating a more distanced perspective. This phenomenon could help explain why a greater number of

203

PTs would be very unlikely to discuss the significance of religious content in Abuelito

Eats with His Fingers than any of the other books as described in Figure 15.

Common arguments for and against discussing the religious content. Unlike the data sets for Research Questions 2 and 3, in which there was a connection between the PTs’ responses (i.e. “I would/wouldn’t use this book) and their rationales, such connections are not explicit in the data sets for Research Question 4. This is due to the nature of the questions to which the PTs were asked to respond (i.e. “How likely would you . . .). Since the majority of the respondents stated that they were either somewhat likely or somewhat unlikely to discuss the significance of certain religious content as illustrated in the figures above, the rationales for their responses include arguments both for and against the discussion. As a result, the responses in this section are not categorized according to likelihood (i.e. very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, very unlikely) because the variance in rationales is so broad. In short, the percentages that are discussed throughout this section regard all 83 PTs’ rationales rather than single categories of response. See Table 38.

Common arguments for discussing the religious content. Below, Tables 38 A and B show the five most popular arguments for discussing the significance of the religious content in each book.

204

Table 38: Most Popular Arguments for Discussing Religious Significance.

Most Popular Arguments for Discussing Religious Family Friends Abuelito Content (Total 83 Respondents) % % % To encourage religious awareness 24% 14% 5% To foster cultural awareness 18% 8% 21% It is important to acknowledge religious significance 12% 12% 16% Religion/religious artifacts are a part of culture 5% 6% 17% To reinforce acceptance/respect for others 6% 4% 5%

Table 38B. Totals: Most Popular Arguments for Discussing Religious Significance Respondents Totals: Arguments for discussing religious content (Total 83) Encourage religious awareness 29 (35%) Foster cultural awareness 28 (34%) Acknowledging religious significance is important 21 (25%) Religion/religious artifacts: part of culture 19 (23%) To reinforce acceptance/respect for others 8 (10%)

As Table 38A illustrates, it is noteworthy that the same arguments are common to all of the books. It is also interesting that nearly a quarter of the respondents would discuss the significance of “The Miracle” from In My Family to encourage religious awareness. In the words of one PT, “I think anytime you can learn about a different type of religious experience it is important to share. Children need to know what all is out there, they do not need to be sheltered. I want to teach my kids to be open and out going.

I want them to try to learn new things no matter if it is about religion or anything else of that nature.”

205

In contrast, only 5% of the PTs would discuss the significance of Abuelito’s candles and statues as a means to encourage religious awareness while more than one- fifth would lead a discussion to foster cultural awareness. Although speculative, this difference in teaching objectives might also be attributed to the way “The Miracle” is presented as a discrete event that regards La Virgen de Guadalupe as a religious icon and the ways Abuelito’s reverence and prayer with the candles and statues are actual interactions in the story, which could be regarded as more cultural in nature. A respondent argues: “I think I would be most likely to initiate a discussion about the religious significance of the statues for this book as opposed to In My Family or Friends

From the Other Side because the statues are explicitly mentioned at least twice in the story. I don’t think it’s acceptable to just ignore them when they are mentioned; . . . the discussion doesn’t need to be very religious, but more about why Abuelito lights the candles and what they mean to him.” As this respondent notes, it is difficult to simply ignore the statues and candles because they are so much a part of the story and Abuelito’s life experience. This stance is also reflected in the higher percentage of PTs (17%) who recognize religion and religious artifact as cultural phenomena in Abuelito Eats with His

Fingers versus In My Family (5%) or Friends from the Other Side (6%).

Across the three books, there are generally equal numbers of respondents whose objectives would be to acknowledge that the religious content in the illustrations and text is significant in the context of the stories (12%–16%) or to reinforce respect for people with different belief systems (4%–6%).

206

As described in Table 38B, perhaps the most positive statistics from this data set are that over one-third of the respondents are interested in encouraging religious awareness (35%) and/or fostering cultural awareness (34%). One-quarter of the PTs

(25%) see that acknowledging the significance of the religious content in important and

23% find that religion and/or religious artifacts are part of culture. These data suggest that some of these PTs might be open to cultivating religious literacy as part of a multicultural education agenda.

Common arguments against discussing religious content. This next section regards the PTs’ arguments against discussing the significance of the religious content in the book. Tables 39 A and B below provides an overview of the common arguments that appeared within the top 10 arguments for each book.

Table 39. Most Popular Arguments Against Discussing Religious Significance.

Family Friends Abuelito Popular Arguments against Discussing Religious Content % % % (83 Respondents) The religious content is not important to the story 6% 12% 17% I do not have enough background knowledge 5% 19% 7% Little/no religion is permitted in public schools 14% 5% 6% Religion is a risky/controversial topic 6% 7% 11% Parent/community disapproval 5% 4% 5% Observe separation of Church and State 3% 6% 6% Respect students’ beliefs 6% 6% 2%

207

Table 39B. Totals: Most Popular Arguments Against Discussing Religious Significance.

Respondents Arguments against discussing religious content (Total 83) Religious content (visual/textual) is not important to the story 24 (29%) I do not have enough background knowledge 19 (23%) Little/no religion permitted in public schools 18 (22%) Risky/controversial topic (religion) 16 (19%) Observe separation of Church and State 9 (11%) Respect students' beliefs 9 (11%) Parental/community disapproval 7 (8%)

Religious content is not important. Among the top two arguments that PTs gave for censoring the discussion of religious content in each of the books is the judgment that the religious content is not important to the story. As suggested by the data in Table 39B, in the figured worlds of 29% of the respondents, understanding the significance of religious content such as the apparition of La Virgin de Guadalupe (Guadalupe) in “The

Miracle” in In My Family, the images of Guadalupe and other religious figures in the herb woman’s bedroom in Friends from the Other Side, and/or the candles and the statues of Guadalupe and fellow saints in Abulelito Eats with His Fingers is not necessary to following the storyline.

For example, in consideration of the religious content of In My Family, a respondent argues that “The Miracle” “goes along with the superstitions of this family…this book is more about the family traditions and the differences in families or what makes this family special as opposed to the religious undertones.” In referencing superstitions, it appears that this PT judges the “The Miracle” as revealing the irrationality of the family’s religion. It seems that in her figured world of teaching, the 208

“undertones” of religion are not significant to the primary curricular purpose of the book, which is to teach about the differences among families and family traditions.

In response to the religious images that adorn the herb woman’s bedroom in

Friends from the Other Side, PTs argued: “I wouldn't discuss the painting and artifacts while reading this book just because the book isn't based on those things. The book was about how a young girl was brave in helping a boy not about what the meaning of artifacts and paintings were;” and “While I believe it is important to discuss various religious backgrounds I do not believe that this is a primary aspect to this story. I believe that the focus of this book is on the issue of immigration. I feel it is unnecessary and irrelevant to bring in the religious pictures in this background story.” In these two arguments, each of the PTs has a different notion of what the story is about—helping others or immigration—yet it seems that neither sees value in understanding the relevance of religious images to the herb woman, and perhaps by extension, to Joaquin and his mother who have some of the very same images in their cabin. It seems that in these PTs’ figured worlds, religious beliefs are trivial if not superfluous to understanding the experiences of persons of Mexican heritage.

Congruently, some PTs argue that discussing the significance of Abuelito’s candles and statues is also unrelated to the story. Their responses include arguments such as: “I would feel like it [discussing the significance] is kind of pointless and not necessary. I do not believe it would be interesting to the students as well,” and “I am hoping to concentrate on the changed relationship between Abuelito and Cristina and not a minor detail such as Abuelito's religion.” Given the language of their comments, these

209

PTs seem to dismiss the ubiquitous nature of religion in Abuelito’s life and in the lives of many people of Mexican heritage. Their responses, like the previous two responses, suggest that these PTs might lack the religious and cultural awareness that is needed to consider why some Latino picture books include visual and textual religious content in the first place.

I do not have enough background knowledge. Nearly one-quarter (23%) of the

PTs report that they do not have adequate background knowledge to address the significance of the religious content of the books. Their written responses include comments such as: “I am not very familiar with Hispanic religious practices and therefore do not feel comfortable discussing them with my students” and “I would be afraid to mess the information up and giving them the wrong idea on who they are and what they do.” These arguments are valid and indicative of a broader phenomenon discussed in

Chapter 2: Many prospective, preservice and practicing teachers possess neither broad- based liberal arts background knowledge, nor the preparation that is needed to successfully discuss religious content in the classroom (Black, 2003; Haynes, 1992;

Douglas, 2000; Noddings, 1993; Nord, 2010; Rosenblith & Baily, 2007).

Little or no religion is permitted in public schools. Twenty-two percent (22%) of the participants in this study presume that little or no discussion about religion is permitted in public schools. For this reason, they would not discuss the relevance of the religious content in the picture books. As one respondent puts it, “I do not plan to work in a Christian parochial school so I would not be allowed to discuss the religious significance. Plus it makes me uncomfortable.” In the words of another, “The only

210 reason I would be partly uncomfortable [in discussing the images in the herb woman’s bedroom] is because religion can not be taught in school. It would be very hard to explain something like religious pictures without going into religion.” It seems that these PTs accept the myth in dominant Discourse that learning about religion (Church) does not correspond with public education (State). Like many teachers, they seem to believe that it is unlawful to discuss religious worldviews in the classroom (Bishop & Nash, 2007;

Escamilla & Nathenson-Meija, 2003). Congruently, 11% of the PTs specifically identify

Separation of Church and State as a reason against discussing the significance of religious content. See Chapter 2 for a deconstruction of the Separation of Church and

State myth.

Religion is a risky and controversial topic. Nearly one-fifth (19%) of the PTs would avoid discussing the religious content in the picture books because in their figured worlds of future teaching, the discussion of religious content is not “normal” or consistent with the expectations of the dominant social group. Rather, the discussion of religion is not only different, it is often considered “deviant” by members of the dominant social group and by some Multiculturalists (Nord, 2010). PTs’ comments allude to the deviance of discussing religion in the classroom particularly as religion and public education constitutes an ongoing national Conversation. “I think that bringing up the religious items in this book [In My Family] wouldn't really be the best idea. I think this because there have been so many issues with religion in the last couple of years,” argues one of the PTs. In response to the religious images in the herb woman’s bedroom of Friends from the Other Side, another respondent writes, “I think it would be very risky to discuss

211 the herb woman's room. She is extremely religious and the use of religion in classrooms is completely frowned upon.” Someone else shares, “I’m just unlikely to share this book

[Abuelito Eats with His Fingers] in my classroom regardless. Religion is a touchy subject in today's classrooms as it is.” These comments are representative of the PTs’ concerns about the perceived deviance in discussing religion in school.

Parent/community disapproval. Consistent with the preceding arguments, eight percent of the PTs worry about parental and community disapproval. “Parents may be concerned about a lesson on religion because its typically not okay to teach religion in schools and parents might not like that we are teaching something other than their own religion” writes one PT in response to In My Family. Another PT argues, “some parents might be offended if they find out about what their children are learning. They may not want their kids hearing about other cultures’ religious ideas so may get mad at me as the teacher for using the book in class. Also, they might get mad at me for not asking them about their feeling before assigning the book.” These rationales for avoiding the religious content in the picture books illustrate some of the respondents’ fears about upsetting parents and suffering consequences for their book selections.

Respect students’ beliefs. Finally, 11% of the future teachers in this study would avoid the discussion of religions content in the picture books because they want to

“respect” the beliefs of their students. That is to say, they do not want to present perspective that might be inconsistent with students’ belief systems. For example, in considering the images in the herb woman’s bedroom, a respondent states, “She [the herb woman] has family paintings and then a painting of the Lady of Guadalupe. I would feel

212 uncomfortable explaining this to children because it might be against their beliefs from home.” Someone else argues, “I don't see the significance to teach the religious importance to a child because it may not relate to them at all. Parents may not want their child to know what it means or want them to know anything but their religion.” These

PTs’ concerns about disrespecting students’ beliefs establish the groundwork for a dangerous bias toward privileging the religious heritage of the dominant cultural group in the school community. Such bias, albeit in an attempt to “respect” students, is inconsistent with the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights, which prohibits proselytizing, even if it is silent (Hayne & Thomas, 2007).

Common conditions for discussing religious content. Although many of the

PTs’ responses included arguments for and against discussing the significance of religious content, many PTs also provided a range of conditions under which they might talk about the content. Tables 40 A and B outline the four most popular conditions across the three books. Table 40A provides sample comments from the PTs’ responses.

213

Table 40. Most Popular Conditions for Discussing Religious Significance.

Family Friends Abuelito Conditions (Total 83) (Total 83) (Total 83) Surface level information 11 (13%) 7 (8%) 10 (12%) “I would explain ‘The Miracle’ by just stating the facts.”

“The paintings and artifacts were all religion based. I may briefly say something about them but not too much.” “I think it would be safe having a quick, light discussion about what the students see and what they know about these religious artifacts.” Student questions/comments 6 (7%) 7 (8%) 11 (13%) “I do not think I would really get into the religious significance of the water tank painting. If a student asked specifically, then I would answer their question and explain some things.”

“There are many images of saints and candles. I think I would explain this part of the book if the children asked about it but that is not a huge component of the books message so I don't think its very important.” “I don't think it would be necessary to discuss in the classroom unless a student had a question about it.” If I did more research on the subject 8 (10%) 8 (10%) 6 (7%) “I do not know very much about ‘The Miracle.’ I would need to do more research on the subject before I decided if it was something I would teach my class about.” “I would feel somewhat comfortable but I would have to do more research on the subject so that I could provide correct material to go along with the religious significance.” “I do not know much about the meaning of the candles and statues but I would be willing to learn about them to teach the kids because these things are important to understand about this culture and their beliefs as a religion.” No proselytizing: teach about religion only 8 (10%) 5 (5%) 2 (2%) “I think the problem comes when teachers only talk about one religion and then press the ideals upon their students.”

“I think if you use it in a way that isn't pushing the religion and saying its not the only one then you can use it and have great discussions and debates about it.” “I would explain what the meaning of the candles and statues means to the grandfather and in his religion, but I would not force my students to believe in the meaning of the candles and statues.”

214

Table 40B. Totals: Most Popular Conditions for Discussing Religious Significance.

Respondents Conditions for discussing religious content (Total 83) Surface level information 23 (28%) Student questions/comments 17 (20%) If I did more research on the subject 15 (18%) No proselytizing. Teach about religion only 11 (13%)

The aforementioned conditions for discussing the significance of religious content that are established by some of the respondents are reflective of the arguments some PTs use to avoid the discussion altogether. As indicated in Table 40B for 28% of the PTs, providing only surface-level information appears to be consistent with what they know to be “normal” or “accepted” in their figured worlds for school. For one-fifth (20%) of the

PTs, providing enough information to answer students’ questions/comments might also be aligned with what they believe to appropriate for the classroom. Thirteen percent see that they could avoid proselytizing and maintain separation of Church and State by explaining that the religious beliefs that are reflected in the story are those of the characters’ and not of all people and/or by talking about multiple religions. Last, 18% the PTs also recognize that they could learn more about the religious traditions that are presented in the stories and could be better equipped to address them.

With this last condition, it is noteworthy that while 18% foresee that doing some research could be an option to discussing the significance of the religious content 23% argued that due to their lack of background information, they would avoid the discussion altogether. Although slight, this variance could be suggestive of a difference in perspective among some of the respondents. In the figured worlds of some PTs there

215 might not be any impetus to learn about the religious traditions of persons who are not members of the dominant cultural groups.

Research Question Five

How does applying a critical lens to a re-reading of a book of one’s choice (In My Family; Friends from the Other Side; or Abuelito Eats with His Fingers) influence the prospective teachers’ interpretations of that book? This next section examines the data that were collected after the PTs learned about the historical and cultural significance of La Virgen de Guadalupe as an icon of

Mexican religious and national identity and after the PTs critically re-read In My Family,

Friends from the Other Side, and Abuelito Eats with His Fingers. The data set was collected by asking the PTs to describe anything that they noticed or learned as a result of critically re-reading the books and to describe the kinds of connections (text-to-self; text- to-text; or text-to-world) they made while reading with a critical lens. The PTs completed their reflections at the end of the Week 8 class sessions. Because they were seated together in small groups to critically re-read and discuss the books of their choice, some of the PTs also talked with each other as they completed their reflections. For this reason, some of the PTs comments were similar to their cohorts in the same book groups.

Table 32 describe the PTs’ responses.

Choice of Books

Out of 83 respondents 68 (82%) participated in the post-reading survey. Fifteen respondents were absent. The respondents were allowed to choose a book for discussion: half of the respondents (33) selected Abuelito Eats with His Fingers, about two out of 216 five (28) chose In My Family, and only one in 10 respondents (7 respondents or 10%) selected the book Friends from the Other Side. See Figure 16.

B)-(CD%,='23*@$4E%:F*D%-G)2=%2(-H*I/)'J%*)>*K))L-*

!14'%2=-*>4);* (/%*?(/%4*@'=%!*

!82*9:*1,;'&:!* 5<7*

Figure 16. Respondents’ Choice of Books for Post-Reading Analysis.

Reflection on Critical Reading

After learning about Guadalupe’s historical and cultural significance in class and after critically re-reading the books, respondents were asked what they noticed/learned after the critical reading of the books. At least 45% of the respondents said that they learned that religion and/or the Virgin of Guadalupe play a significant role in

Mexican/Hispanic/Latino in the lives of the characters depicted in the story and by extension, many people of Mexican/Hispanic/Latino heritage. See Table 41.

217

Table 41. Respondents Reflection after Critical Reading of Books. Respondents During critical reading of the books I learned about/noticed: (Total 68) Guadalupe and religious traditions are important to story characters or 31 Mexican/Hispanic/Latino families Aspects of Mexican/Latino/Hispanic culture and traditions 12 A general, increased understanding/appreciation of the story 9 Non-Response 8 Appreciation of family 5 Moral messages: Accept, befriend, and/or help others 4 Did not notice/learn anything 3 Being an outsider to your own culture (Abuelito: Tina’s perspective) 3 Spanish words could be difficult for kids (Abuelito: No glossary/translation) 3 Language barriers can be overcome 1

Some of the respondents were more general in describing an increased awareness of family, culture, religion, and diversity as outlined above. In the words of one PT, “I noticed that I did not know much about this religion and taking a critical reading lens shifted my interpretation of the book somewhat since I could relate it to the information we learned in class.” More philosophically, another PT reflects, “I noticed that sometimes we are scared but when we looking at things more in depth you start to understand them. Religion is key important to many people and they take it seriously.”

These responses suggest that for at least two of the PTs adopting a critical reading increased their meta-knowledge in thinking about their responses to the books.

Though only 68 respondents (15 fewer than those who responded to the literature response questions for each book) completed written reflections after critically re-reading the books, data suggest that many experienced a modest increase in understanding the

218 contexts of the books they read as depicted in Table 32. Respondents’ figured worlds of

“normal” or “acceptable” did not necessarily shift. With regard to what she noticed in critically re-reading In My Family, one PT writes, “There are many important aspects of this culture presented from an insider [author]. These things are likely to be acceptable.”

In this statement, the PT seems to judge the content of the book based on her figured worlds for what is “acceptable” or “un-acceptable” content. Three other PTs use the critical reading lens to judge Abuelito Eats with His Fingers. These respondents suggest that the author Levy “didn’t do a good job” because “some of the words in the book are not even explained” and “a younger child may not pick up on the language.” It appears that in the figured worlds construed by these PTs, children’s books are intended for

English-speaking readers. These readers are the “implied readers” as discussed in Chapter

2. Thus, an author only does a “good job” when she accommodates English-speaking readers with in-text translations of Spanish words rather than contextual clues or inferences. Bilingual or Spanish-speaking children who might appreciate the few

Spanish words seem to be outsiders to the target audience in this figured world. In short, while an increase in subject-matter knowledge prior to re-reading the picturebooks was both appreciated by and helpful to many of the PTs, the increase does not appear to immediately influence the PTs’ figured worlds.

Returning to the subject of Abuelito Eats with His Fingers, it is also interesting to note that nearly half of the PTs elected to re-read this picturebook, while approximately

40% re-read In My Family, and 10% re-read Friends from the Other Side. (See Figure

25.) Although speculative, one reason that more people might have elected to critically

219 re-read Abuelito Eats with His Fingers, could be associated with the notion that Tina, the protagonist, is an outsider to her culture. Three respondents mentioned this as indicated in the code “Being an outsider to your own culture.” During the Week 8 class discussion with the Tuesday evening group, PTs who re-read Abuelito Eats with His Fingers, also suggested that since Tina was an outsider to her Mexican culture, she was an ideal guide for readers who are cultural outsiders like themselves.

Connections to Stories

The respondents were asked to describe the connections they made while reading the books. More than half (59%) of respondents described their connection as “text to self” (connection to their grandparents, family, religion etc.). About one fifth (19%) described their connection as “text to world,” making references to knowledge about other cultures/religions or Mexican/Hispanic/Latino culture. Only five respondents (7%) referred to “text to text” connection. These connections were specific to the picture books, Talking Eagle and the Lady of Roses (Córdova, 2011) and The Lady of Guadalupe

(dePaola, 1980) that were used in the Week 8 class session to demonstrate and practice the reading process prior to re-reading In My Family, Friends from the Other Side, and

Abuelito Eats with His Fingers. See Figure 17 below.

220

-34536!78*9%6&++":;&+.%<=2">%

+)#$

!"#$ *)#$

&)#$

%&#$ '"#$ %)#$ (#$

)#$ !"#$%$&%'"()% *&+,-"./&+."% !"#$%$&%0&1(2% !"#$%$&%!"#$%

Figure 17. Respondents’ Connections to Stories.

The text-to-self connections that the PTs described in response to their critical re- readings of the books are consistent with the personal connections many PTs made in writing their general responses to the books. (See Research Question 2.) Initially, approximately 45% of respondents made personal connections to In My Family and 39% of respondents connected to Abuelito Eats with His Fingers. Given these initial data points, the connections the PTs made after critically re-reading are repetitive, showing little variation.

In summary, prior to critically re-reading the picture books in the Week 8 class session, the PTs learned about the historical and cultural significance of Guadalupe who is depicted in the religious content across all three books. They also learned about critical literacy principles and practiced applying a critical reading lens before revisiting the three picture books for this study. As a result of this process, many of the PTs reported some increased awareness of the significance of culture, family, and religion to the context of

221 the stories. Some of the PTs’ responses suggest, however, that increased awareness does not necessarily influence one’s figured worlds. Overall, the PTs did not report any significant variations in their connections to the stories. Since the PTs comments primarily regarded their personal reading experiences, it is difficult to infer from this data set whether the critical reading process shifted the PTs’ motives for or against using In

My Family, Friends from the Other Side, and Abuelito Eats with His Fingers in their future classrooms.

Research Question Six

What kinds of Discourses and figured worlds (Gee, 2011) do prospective teachers

construe about Latinos around works of Latino children’s literature that includes

visual religious content?

The data for this final research question, “What kinds of figured worlds (Gee,

2011) do PTs construe around Latinos in response to works of Latino children’s literature that includes visual religious content?” was collected by analyzing the data via the questions: (a) What Discourse or Discourses are involved?; (b) What Conversations are relevant to understanding the language?; and (c) What figured worlds, if any, are relevant and/or being used to make value judgments about oneself or others? In analyzing the data set, a thematic network emerged. See Figure 18.

222

" !

Figure 18. Prospective Teachers’ Figured World: “Typical” Persons of Mexican Heritage.

This final question looks at the data set through Gee’s (2011) lens of Discourses and figured worlds. In thinking about this question, it may be helpful to recall that the participants in this study were primarily white women in their early twenties with limited background experience or knowledge about Latino cultures. These prospective teachers

(PTs) are primarily members of the dominant social class. Their figured worlds about

U.S.-born Americans and immigrants of Latino heritage may thus be informed by the dominant Discourse about Latinos, which, as described earlier, includes the Latino Threat

Narrative (LTN) (Chavez, 2008) and the Anglo-American Narrative (AAN) (Santa Ana,

2002).

Key considerations for the results of this data inquiry are that: (a) the figured worlds that are revealed in the analysis are relative to the PTs’ response to three works of 223 critical fiction and (b) the PTs’ responses to the books were constructed in the context of a “homework assignment” for one of their courses. Therefore, many of the responses could have been couched in a manner that is consistent with the Discourse of school and thus composed for a specific audience, namely the instructor.

With the global theme of the analysis being PTs’ notion of what is “normal” or

“typical” of persons of Latino heritage (i.e. “Persons of Mexican heritage may be like us, but they are not us”), the organizing themes for this discussion include: “Family

Composition,” “Ordinariness,” “Profile,’ and “Milieu.” Each of these organizing categories represents a set of specific, basic themes that will be discussed here. Much of this discussion regards the PTs’ responses to In My Family, which describes artist-author

Carmen Lomas Garza’s childhood experiences with her family in and around the community of Kingsville, TX.

Family Composition

In response to In My Family, several PTs commented on the composition of

Carmen Lomas Garza’s family as being representative of a “typical” family of Mexican heritage and/or immigrant background. “What stuck out the most about the story was how family oriented the Mexican people are,” writes one respondent. “When I think of immigrant families living in Texas, large family atmospheres come to mind,” offers another. These respondents’ comments seem to generalize the qualities of Garza’s family to many families of Mexican heritage. The personal connections to In My Family that some PTs described in their responses are suggestive of the kinds of taken-for-granted assumptions that the respondents might also have about families of Mexican heritage. For

224 example, a number of the responses included lines such as: “I too have a very large family” or “Her [Garza’s] family is close knit and loving similar to mine.” Inferring from responses like these, it appears that in the PTs’ figured worlds, typical families of

Mexican heritage are close knit, large, and loving.

Ordinariness

Normal family life. Maintaining the family theme, some PTs also generalized that “typical” families of Mexican heritage are “ordinary” or “normal,” and thus, “like us.” For example, one respondent suggests that the characters in In My Family “were easy to relate to as they were just a normal family” (emphasis added). This respondent’s use of the word “normal” to describe Garza’ family references a socially and culturally constructed theory (figured world) about the characteristics of a “typical” family in the dominant Discourse (Gee, 2011). Thus, as a “normal” family, Garza’s family shares the same characteristics of a typical, bonded, happy family in the dominant white, middle- class social group. Embracing this same figured world, another respondent suggests, “all of the family [members] look happy and talented. They look like they come from a middle class background.” Going further, someone else posits, “The paintings [of In My

Family] seemed to try to depict how 'Americanized' the family was. The brother had a baseball mitt and gloves, the family celebrated the same holidays as most Americans, and the father was even in WWII.” This respondent sees that Carmen Lomas Garza’s family paintings match his “picture” (figured world) of a typical American family. His response suggests that Garza’s family was acculturated in embracing “American” patriotism, pastimes, and holidays. Hence, her family is like “normal” American families.

225

Inferring from the responses collectively (Krippendorff, 2004), it seem that for some PTs, the typical family of the dominant Discourse is the standard by which to compare families who reside outside of the dominant social group. This standard appears to be applied in this final remark, which was submitted by a PT in her discussion about the characters’ families in Anzaldúa’s Friends from the Other Side: “the bonds between family are the same no matter if you are an illegal or not.” For this respondent, the quality of a bonded family that is valued in the dominant social group is also valued by families of “illegal” immigrants, who are in a subordinate group. (The PTs’ use of the term “illegal” was discussed earlier.) To summarize, for some of the PTs the Mexican and Mexican-American families presented in the books match their figured worlds of a

“typical” family. As a result, they found the families to be “ordinary” or “just like us.”

Ordinary celebrations of holidays and milestones. Just as some PTs see that

Hispanic/Latino/Mexican families are “normal” like their family, they also see that the ways Hispanic/Latino/Mexican families celebrate holidays and milestones are like the ways they celebrate, too. For example, in thinking about her standards (figured world) of a “normal” birthday party, one respondent offers, “The family BBQ part [of In My

Family] was close to being as accurate as could be, besides having a piñata.” In other words, the way Garza’s family celebrated birthdays is consistent with the ways a typical birthday party is celebrated by members of the dominant social group—except for the non-conforming piñata.

This same sentiment was reflect by several PTs whose common figured worlds for typical Easter holiday traditions were generally satisfied by Garza’s description of her

226 family’s Easter traditions. “I also gather around with my family on Easter Sunday for a big meal, and then work together to paint Easter eggs,” writes one respondent. “They, as well, dye eggs and celebrate with family,” observes another. With regard to the way

Garza’s family also fills their dyed Easter eggs with confetti, a respondent shares, “I am used to the Easter Egg painting/hunt tradition but the confetti filling is something new to me.” In considering the whole book, another respondent suggests that Garza “showed interesting variations to mainstream culture. For example, the way the characters in the story fill their Easter eggs with confetti rather than candy.” Here, the PT accounts for what is “normal” in the dominant cultural group and suggests that the tradition of using confetti is a variation on the norm.

With regard to family activities such as preparing food together, another PT writes, “This is one of my first experiences learning about the Mexican culture. We have quite of few similarities just with different things (pies instead of empanadas).” This respondent, who notes that she has limited background knowledge, generalizes that with the simple exchange of food items, things in “Mexican culture” are similar to things in the dominant (“we”) cultural group. Finally, in the context of acknowledging similarities in the celebration of holidays and milestones, some PTs not only make generalizations, but draw a clear line of separation between social groups. For example, as an activity a respondent suggests that her future students might “talk [about] the similarities and differences about how they—Americans—celebrate Easter and Weddings compared to how the Mexican's celebrate it.” Here, in the PT’s figured world of her future classroom, her students are “American.” Garza’s Mexican-American family is not.

227

Cultural Profile

The preceding section described how some PTs found that the way Garza’s

Mexican-American family celebrated holidays and milestones generally matches their figured worlds for how such events normally unfold. This next section examines how some PTs also believe that Garza’s family “just was simply different from the traditional

American family,” in the words of one respondent. Generalizing, in the words of another respondent, there are “differences between our culture and Mexican culture. I realized that there were a great deal of differences.”

Allegiance to culture of “old country.” Consistent with the Anglo-American

Narrative (AAN), which suggests that Latinos might only demonstrate their loyalty to

American culture by denouncing the cultures of their homelands (Santa Ana, 2002), some respondents likewise argue that Garza’s family members are allegiant to Mexican social customs even if they are American citizens. In addition to regarding Garza’s family as

“Mexican” rather than Mexican American, for example, one respondent suggests that

Garza’s family members were “able to uphold their traditions and culture even when they weren’t in their own country.” Similarly, another PT writes, “the biggest thing that surprised me was the fact of how much of Hispanic tradition was still part of her life even though they lived in the states.” Last, a PT, reflecting on the way Garza’s family members grow and harvest food from their gardens, reflects, “I did think that it was strange that they relied so heavily on food that they harvested because they are in

America. . . . They still rely on the customs of their Mexican culture.” Like the previous respondents, in this PT’s figured world, Garza’s family chooses to maintain the “old

228 ways.” In this instance, the PT seems to assume that typical Americans do not grow food for themselves. Collectively, logic of such responses suggests that atypical practices are therefore un-American and reflective of a different country.

Collective immigrant experience. Hand in hand with the notion that Mexican

American families like Garza’s sustain the customs of a different country is the underlying premise that persons of Mexican heritage must share a common immigrant experience. In this figured world, there is no accommodation for families who have lived in the Southwest for generations and/or might have been Tejanos prior to the Mexican-

American War and the Treaty of Hidalgo in 1848. Rather, it is assumed that persons of

Mexican heritage are historically recent arrivals to the U.S. The opening discussion about families, for example, references a respondent who assumed that Garza’s family was a large immigrant family. Congruently, other PTs report that In My Family “does a good job depicting the lives of Latino immigrants as they carry on with their day” and reflects the notion that “Texas was having a lot of Mexicans coming up to live” at the time the story was set (1950s – 1970s). Reflecting on the story, one PT even writes, “I was surprised at how easily life seemed for this . . . Mexican family. Texas isn't exactly the best place to be especially when it comes to border control, but the family seemed to be living carefree.” For this respondent, the fact that Garza’s family appears unconcerned by the presence of border police in the region seems to imply that in this

PT’s figured world, families of Mexican heritage are, in fact, undocumented immigrants who would normally be anxious and fearful of deportation. In short, these responses are illustrative of the narrative in the dominant Discourse that positions all persons of

229

Mexican heritage as undocumented if not documented immigrants. None are recognized as Tejanos who have been U.S. citizens for generations.

Subject to hardship. Following up on the immigrant status that some PTs assigned to Garza’s family, this next section addresses another common assumption: people of Mexican heritage are subject to hardship. It might be for this reason that some

PTs expressed surprise in response to In My Family. In the words of one respondent, “I was shocked that this aspect [of hardship] was not mentioned.” According to another, “I was surprised the story didn't focus more on the hardships that the Mexicans faced— especially when living so close to the border.” Like the previous respondent, it appears that in this respondent’s figured world, life in a border town would produce difficulties for persons of Mexican heritage presumably because they could be at risk for deportation.

This next response is similar: “I actually thought that it was surprising that this family lived a pretty normal, happy life in Texas even though they are of a different culture. I thought they would have harder times back then.” In this response, the PT finds it unusual that Garza’s family leads the kind of life that is nearly “normal” as defined by the dominant Discourse because in her figured world, Garza’s family would have suffered harder times.

In response to Anzaldúa’s Friends from the Other Side (Friends), which regards the experience of the boy Joaquin who has crossed the border with his mother, one PT suggests that the book “would be a great educational resources to use in the classroom to educate empathy toward Hispanics.” It appears that this PT has good intentions for using

Friends as a tool for teaching social justice. However, underpinning her comment seems

230 to be the generalized assumption that all Hispanics suffer and thereby deserve empathy from the dominant social group. Aligned with this response to Friends, another PT imagines the emotional as well as the physical hardships that immigrants might experience. She writes, “I could not relate very well with . . . [the characters in Friends] because I have never experienced hunger or need of work. I have never known what it was like to be a hated immigrant” (emphasis added). This is an extraordinary statement.

Here, the PT voices the dominant Discourse that defines immigrants as hated beings (as part of the Latino Threat Narrative) as she defines the hardships she observes of Joaquin and his mother in Friends. To summarize, across both stories, some PTs adhere to a figured world in which persons of Hispanic/Mexican heritage are not only immigrants, but also victims of hardship as defined by the dominant social group.

Spanish speakers. This next section addresses another taken-for-granted notion.

In the figured worlds of some PTs, all persons of Hispanic/Latino heritage are Spanish speakers. Thus, some PTs wondered why the grandchild Tina in Abuelito Eats with His

Fingers (Abuelito) did not speak Spanish. Some also wondered why Tina was not closer to Abuelito because in their figured worlds, families of Hispanic/Latino heritage are typically close knit. “I was surprised that the grandfather spoke Spanish and the granddaughter only spoke English,” writes one respondent. “I was surprised that she

[Tina] did not know Spanish and also that she was not initially close with her grandfather,” says another. With regard to using Abuelito in the classroom, a PT also suggests it would be “worth noting [considering] what would be the reason why the young girl was not bilingual,” as she did not offer a rationale in her response. In short, as

231 a monolingual English speaker who is not naturally close with her grandfather, Tina’s story in Abuelito did not correspond with how children of Hispanic/Latino heritage behave in the figured worlds of some PTs. These PTs’ responses could be exemplars of the way members of the dominant social groups assume that persons of Hispanic/Latino heritage are monolingual Spanish speakers as explained by Santa Ana (2002) in the

Anglo-American Narrative (AAN), described by Chavez (2008) in the Latino Threat

Narrative (LTN), and discussed by Ada (2003) and Chomsky (2007).

Milieu

This next section considers the geographic parameters that PTs place around themselves as members of the dominant social class and around persons of

Hispanic/Latino heritage as members of a subordinate, outsider group. Like previous sections, most of this discussion regards the PTs responses to In My Family and Friends.

Live in enclaves. In the figured worlds of some of the PTs, persons of

Hispanic/Latino heritage live in enclaves. For example, in response to Friends, a respondent notes that living near the border, “Mexicans were separated from wealthy and poor [communities]” presumably of the dominant white cultural group. In response to In

My Family, a respondent suggests that Garza’s family resided in what he presumed to be

“a very heavily Mexican-American populated part of the country” where Mexican traditions were honored. Consistent with this response, another PT states that the

“pictures and descriptions [of In My Family] are very helpful for trying to understand the culture in Kingsville Texas and other Mexican neighborhoods” (emphasis added). In contrast, another respondent who has family in Kingsville, Texas argues, “I have been

232 there before. Kingsville is not as small and remote as it is made out to be. There is a university and developed downtown. The depictions are of the rural outskirts.” In this response, the PT seems to imply that Mexican American families like Garza’s live in communities that are outside of the mainstream area where universities are located and members of the dominant social group reside.

Live outside of America. This last section regards the way in which several PTs assume that people of Mexican heritage do not live in Texas or America proper. In their figured worlds, which may be informed by and reflective of the dominant Discourse and national Conversations about the Hispanic/Latino population in the U.S., there is a clear distinction of what is and is not America. The responses in this section primarily regard

In My Family, which, as mentioned above, is set in Kingsville, Texas. To provide context for the PTs responses, on the first page of In My Family, Garza includes a note to her readers that the story is set in her hometown of Kingsville. In addition, two of the literature response questions reinforce that In My Family is set in Texas (i.e., “Was there anything that surprised you about Carmen Lomas Garza’s depiction (textual or visual) of life in Kingsville Texas from the late 1950s through the 1970s? If so, what?” and “Both

In My Family and Friends are based on the authors’ lived experiences in the South Texas region. Describe any commonalities that you might have noticed between these two picture books.”)

“In My Family was a good representation of family life in Mexico. It was full of traditions of the Mexican people.” In this response, the PT assumes that Garza’s family resides in Mexico despite the markers that the story is set in Texas. Perhaps in her

233 figured world, families like Garza’s do not live in the U.S. Another respondent likewise infers that the story is set outside of America as she reports, “Obviously, being from the

Americas, I don't really know much of Hispanic culture, so I found this to be a very fun and informational picture book.” As an inhabitant of the “Americas” this respondent does not have knowledge of Hispanics/Latinos because they do not reside in her country.

The respondents in this next section acknowledge that In My Family is set in

Texas but their comments suggest otherwise. For example, some respondents report:

“The book seemed as though it was based in Mexico rather than Texas. Everything reminded me of Mexico” and “It did not seem as if they were living in Texas. It seemed like they were living in Mexico with all her family close by.” This latter response suggests that in this PT’s figured world, large families of Mexican heritage primarily exist in Mexico. Because in their figured worlds of Texas persons of Hispanic/Latino heritage as seemingly excluded, the next two respondents were initially convinced that the story was set in Mexico. One respondent writes, “I forgot that the setting was in

Texas because the pictures were made so much to reflect the Mexican culture.” The other reflects, “When I was reading I forgot this was set in Texas. It felt like it was set in

Mexico because of all the Spanish traditions.” Collectively, four out of the six responses presented here specifically state that because Garza’s family culture appears to be so

Hispanic/Mexican/Spanish in the paintings of In My Family, the PTs assumed the story was set outside of the U.S. This taken-for-granted notion reflects a figured world in which persons of Hispanic/Latino heritage who do not meet the norms for being

American, which mandate the rejection of all things foreign (Chavez, 2008; Santa Ana;

234

2002), are not recognized as residents or citizens of the United States by the dominant social class.

Aliens among Americans. Going one step further, it appears that in the subconscious figured worlds of a few PTs, persons of Hispanic/Latino heritage are, in fact, outsiders to the human species. This stance is revealed in the way that these PTs respond to In My Family. As if clarification is necessary, one respondent suggests that

Garza’s family members are “shown to be human just like the rest of us despite the cultural barrier.” Congruently, two other PTs are surprised that the children in Garza’s family “have brothers and sisters;” and “can get hurt by a fire ant” just like humans. As discussed in Chapter 2, binaries such as citizen/foreigner and native/invader are common to the Latino Threat Narrative (LTN), (Chavez, 2008) and used by politicians on public radio airways (National Hispanic Media Coalition, 2012). The binary of human/non- human is another metaphor in the anti-Latino discourse (Santa Ana, 2002). On the national stage, dehumanization has served to exclude Latinos from public policies that regard the distribution of social goods and services including access to education and medical care.

Summary

A complex web of figured worlds about who Americans are and who persons of

Hispanic/Latino heritage are is revealed in the PTs’ responses to the picture books In My

Family, Friends from the Other Side, and Abuelito Eats with His Fingers. For many of the PTs, the constructs of Garza’s Mexican-American family and Mexican-American ways of celebrating holidays and milestones generally match the norms set by the

235 dominant group—with the exception of birthday party piñatas, confetti-filled Easter eggs, and family-made empanadas. In conjunction with the Universalist stance that everyone is nearly alike is an array of figured worlds that excludes persons of Hispanic/Latino heritage from American citizenry through the lens of the dominant social group. In such figured worlds, persons of Hispanic/Latino heritage are Spanish speakers who are allegiant to the cultures of their home countries and figuratively positioned outside of

“America” by the dominant social group.

236

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This conclusion presents a recapitulation of the research findings and a discussion of the conclusions and implications of this study.

Recapitulation of the Research

Problem. While Hispanics/Latinos represent the largest minority population in the United State (US Census Bureau, 2010), Latinos and persons who follow alternative religious traditions are often absent from curricular materials. Tucson Unified School

District’s elimination of such materials has been a part of the national Conversation on censorship in public education. Locally, some teachers exercise bias in selecting works of multicultural children’s literature for the classroom. In some instances, the education and self-esteem of Latino children suffer.

Scholars who have grappled with teachers’ selection and use of multicultural children’s literature in the classroom argue that critical literacy practices, which include assessing one’s own bias and accessing the background knowledge needed to critically engage with a book, are key to promoting and modeling multiculturalism. What they have not yet identified is the centrality of engagement with religion to cultural literacy in

America and the function of current teacher approaches to religion in maintaining prejudicial Discourse. This examination of PTs’ approaches to religious content in classroom materials begins to bridge that gap and offers a scaffold from which to 237 reconsider the actual impact of current teacher training in education toward multiculturalism.

Objectives. The objectives for this research were to address multiple interrelated concerns in contemporary multicultural children’s literature and teacher education. This study set forth to (a) describe the cultural and religious awareness of young prospective teachers (PTs) who are themselves products of the K-12 and post-secondary multicultural education movement of the last decade; (b) reveal the social Discourses that future teachers apply to Latinos as a minority group; (c) expose PTs to accurate, affirmative works of Latino children’s literature and to concrete information about the historical interconnectedness of religion and culture in Mexico and the Mexican Diaspora; and to

(d) raise questions about the ways teacher education programs prepare new teachers to meet the needs of a highly diverse populations of which Hispanics/Latinos are the largest minority group and to foster cultural and religious awareness as part of the multicultural education agenda.

Theoretical framework. Grounded in socio-cultural theory, this study was framed by Gee’s (2011) concept of figured worlds, which are personal theories, notions, or assumptions about what is “normal” or “typical” of people and the world around them.

As taken-for-granted assumptions, in the collective figured world of the dominant social group, persons of Latino heritage are construed to be Catholic, monolingual Spanish speakers who live in their own communities, marry fellow Latinos, resist the influence of and integration into larger society or culture, and are outside of the real if citizenry

(Chavez, 2008). Assumptions like these comprise what Chavez (2008) regards as the

238

Latino Threat Narrative (LTN) and what Santa Ana (2002) describes as the Anglo-

American Narrative (AAN). These narratives illustrate how groups’ simplified assumptions of “normal” on which their figured worlds are based “can do harm by implanting in thought and action unfair, dismissive or derogatory assumptions about other people” (Gee, 2011, p. 77). These kinds of assumptions could be sustained from one generation to the next. Within the institution of public education, for example, the cyclical nature by which some teachers rely on their personal histories or apprenticeships of observation (Britzman, 1986; Lortie, 1975) to construe their figured worlds of teaching could inadvertently reify or perpetuate the Discourse of the dominant cultural group over other cultural groups. In conceiving of Discourse as subject matter knowledge, which informs the content teachers will teach (Grossman, 1990; Shulman, 1987), teachers might cyclically privilege certain content and curriculum materials, as well.

This study was also framed by Beach’s (1997) reader response theory of subject positioning, which considers the connections between readers’ ideological orientations and their acceptance or rejection of multicultural literature. Consistent with Gee’s concept of figured worlds, Beach (1997) argues that readers, including teachers, are socialized to assume reading stances that validate their membership or status in certain groups. These stances are construed and influenced by the ideological discourse of the group. They reinforce the group’s concept of “normal” and could lead teachers to avoid or exclude from the classroom certain works of multicultural children’s literature.

Literature reviews. The scholarly literature that underpins this research project illustrates the ways that teachers adopt stances toward the use of multicultural children’s

239 literature in the classroom that enable them to focus on diversity while at the same time allowing them to avoid discussions about power structures and struggles. In taking a

Universalist stance, teachers could, for example, focus on how families and family celebrations are similar across cultural groups with a few variations, like a birthday piñata. In taking a Protector of Children, NIMBY, Curriculum First, or Law Abiding

Citizen stance, teachers could justify the censorship of texts or passing over thorny topics of conversation such as institutional prejudice and/or alternative belief systems.

The literature has also described the state of religious awareness in public education and public Discourse. Hilary Clinton’s faux pas at the Basilica of La Virgen de

Guadalupe in Mexico City is, perhaps, representative of the norm in dominant Discourse that literacy in religious traditions other than one’s own is not expected. Some religious groups even prohibit it. Thus, despite the objectives of the multicultural education agenda, the national Conversation on religion and public education is not usually directed at fostering a culturally religiously pluralistic society through education. As a result, teachers have little preparation to discuss the relevance of religion in society and my study reveals how teachers adopt varying stances to avoid the subject and how their efforts toward multiculturalism are undermined by this avoidance. Moreover, the scholarship on using multicultural children’s literature to foster religious awareness in public education is limited; my results on the impact of avoidance of religion and other stances that perpetuate Discourse suggest these will continue to operate in teacher training in the absence of increased scrutiny.

240

Finally, the literature that was reviewed for this research provided critical literacy pedagogy for examining multicultural children’s literature in university and professional development courses. Collectively, the literature outlined a comprehensive set of recommendations for critical literacy educators and thus informed the pedagogy for this inquiry. An important part of the pedagogy is recognizing reader bias and ensuring that adequate background information is provided to support teachers’ application of a critical reading lens. My study indicates that current pedagogies to facilitate recognition of reader bias and exposure to background information may not be sufficient to induce the critical self-reflection necessary to ameliorate current PT practices and choices.

Methodology. Data were collected from 83 prospective teachers’ (PTs’) responses to three Latino picturebooks that contain religious visual content: In My

Family, Friends from the Other Side, and Abuelito Eats with His Fingers. Gee’s (2011) concept of figured worlds served as an inquiry tool in the content analysis methodology, which included Attride-Stirlings’ (2001) thematic network organization.

Conclusions

Informed by the aforementioned considerations, my work described the kinds of figured worlds the PTs conjured about Latinos in response to the literature. It also assayed the extent to which prospective teachers had or developed the capacity to critically consider one of the most problematic and least practiced elements of multicultural education: religion.

Knowledge and relationship to cultures. The story of this research began in considering how teachers describe their knowledge of and relationships to the Latino

241 cultures depicted in the picturebooks. The data set that was analyzed for Research

Question One illustrates that aside from the information that was presented in class about the historical interconnectedness of La Virgen de Guadalupe, religion, and Mexican and

Mexican American culture, many of the PTs did not have other sources of background knowledge to support their reading of the picturebooks. Those who did have background knowledge noted a variety of sources for their information including other university courses, Catholicism, Mexican food, travel, and friends. These findings could be considered alongside of the findings about the PTs’ likelihood of discussing the significance of the picturebooks’ religious content in the classroom. Twenty three percent of the PTs reported that they did not have the background knowledge needed to discuss the religious content. Given that the PTs were not asked to describe their background knowledge yet volunteered this information, it is remarkable that these future teachers noted a knowledge gap. Collectively, these findings lead me to conclude that many of the future teachers in this study had limited background knowledge to inform their figured worlds about individuals and families of Mexican heritage.

General impressions of Latino picturebooks with religious content. Knowing that many of the PTs have limited background knowledge about Mexican and Mexican

American heritage, the patterns in PTs open-ended, general responses to the picturebooks for Research Question Two are noteworthy. First, and perhaps foremost to the objectives of this study, none of the respondents commented on the visual religious content of the picturebooks in their general responses.

242

This lack of acknowledgment suggests that some PTs might not have recognized the religious content. Alternately, they might have (consciously or unconsciously) sidestepped the religious content. Second, the way some PTs cast Joaquin and his mother as “Illegals” in their general responses to Friends from the Other Side confirms the influence of the Latino Threat Narrative (LTN) in dominant Discourse such that PTs employ elements of the narrative in their school Discourse. Third, the general response data reveal at least two ideological stances that the PTs adopt: the Universalist and the individual prejudice stance. As Universalist, 45% of the PTs made personal connections to In My Family while 39% connected with Abuelito Eats with His Fingers. Based on their concepts of “normal,” the PTs identified universal types of family experiences, traditions, relationships, and/or feelings in the stories, that led some respondents to conclude that the characters in the stories are “just like us.” These findings are consistent with the findings of Ketter and Lewis (2001) and Shannon (1994) that were discussed in

Chapter Two.

In adopting the individual prejudice stance, some PTs judged Tina’s initial rejection of Abuelito in Abuelito Eats with His Fingers as being “unacceptable” based on the norms of the dominant Discourse – the same Discourse that expects persons of

Mexican heritage to reject all cultural connections to Mexico. Their responses reveal that assumptions could diminish the possibilities for reading critically and asking questions such as: “Why does Tina initially reject Abuelito?” and “How might social institutions influence Tina’s feelings toward Abuelito?”

243

Selection or rejection of books. While 45% or more of the PTs adopted a

Universalist stance in their general response to the picturebooks, it is interesting that several PTs conversely adopted stances of resistance to censor or establish conditions for their future use of the picturebooks in response to Research Question Three. These stances of resistance (Protect the Children, NIMBY, Curriculum First, and Law Abiding

Citizen) originate from the PTs’ speculations or figured worlds about who their future students are and what their future curriculum and course content will be. These findings are consistent with the findings of Beach (1997), Escamilla and Nathenson-Meja (2007),

Schmidt, Armstrong, and Everett (2007), and Wollman-Bonilla (1998). Implicit to these stances is the taken-for-granted assumption that the PTs’ future students will be members of the dominant cultural groups and will therefore share the same sensibilities and theories as the PTs about what is socially and culturally “normal.” These stances may also be influenced by the PTs’ apprenticeships of observation as students themselves. As the data set for Question Three suggests, in adopting any of these stances of resistance, the chances for exploring alternative perspectives through multicultural children’s literature are reduced.

In contrast to the PTs who would resist the use of the books in their future classrooms, the majority of the future teachers (at least 70%) would select In My Family,

Friends from the Other Side, and/or Abuelito Eats with His Fingers to advance certain teaching objectives. At least 66% of the PTs would use one or more of the books to foster cultural awareness; at least 32% to reinforce acceptance and respect for others, and at least 48% to discuss the significance of family. Collectively, these top teaching

244 objectives could reflect these future teachers’ interest in cultivating students’ awareness and appreciation for diversity. One caveat to these objectives is in the way some PTs generalize that the characters in the story are representative of the “typical” person or family of Mexican heritage. Such generalizations essentialize persons of Mexican heritage as being one and the same and inadvertently reinforce a basic tenet of anti-Latino

Discourse.

Last, consistent with the fact that nobody mentioned religion in their general responses to the book, just one person mentioned religion with regard to using the books in the classroom. This respondent reported that she would not use Abuelito Eats with His

Fingers with her future student due to the religious content. This finding reinforces the possibility that some PTs either sidestepped or did not recognize the religious content of the picturebooks.

Acknowledging religious content. Having explored the PTs’ personal responses to the books and having established that at least 70% of respondents would use one or more of the books in the classrooms, it is remarkable that the PTs’ likelihood of discussing the relevance of the religious content in the books is significantly less than their likelihood of using the books in the classroom. As few as 49% or more of the respondents would be likely to discuss one or more of the following versions of religious content: “The Miracle,” the images in the herb woman’s bedroom, or Abuelito’s candles and statues.

Across the three books, PTs were less apt to discuss the significance of Abuelito’s statues and candles (49%) than they were the significance of “The Miracle” (61%) or the

245 images in the herb woman’s bedroom (51%). Meanwhile, only 5% of the PTs would discuss Abuelito’s candles and statues as a means to encourage religious awareness, while 21% of respondents would to foster cultural awareness. These findings suggest that some respondents might not see a connection between religion and culture.

Although some PTs would use one or more of the books to cultivate an appreciation for diversity, their enthusiasm waned with the prospect of addressing the religious perspectives of a culture. As described in Chapter Four, 29% of the PTs argued that the religious content was not important to one or more of the stories, some employing dismissive language in their responses. Hence, it is possible that some of these future teachers may not have been cognizant of the possibility that religion is inseparable from culture for many people in the world. They might not have the awareness to critically consider why religious content is included in some works of multicultural children’s literature. This appreciation is irrespective of the political reasons why some PTs would avoid discussing the relevance of religious content in the classroom (i.e. myth that religion does not have a place in the curriculum; fear of parental disapproval; fear of

“disrespecting” the dominant religious beliefs in the classroom, etc.) At the core of such appreciation is the recognition that “millions of Americans find the most profound sources of meaning in their lives in their religious traditions and define themselves less in terms of ethnicity, gender, or nationality than in terms of religion” (Nord, 2010, p. 143).

Consistent with the literature on religion and teacher preparation, this data confirm that (a) religion is a taboo topic for prospective teachers as much as it is for practicing teachers, (Fraser, 1999; Green and Oldendorf, 2005; Hayne & Thomas, 2007;

246

Rosenblith & Baily, 2007); (b) prospective teachers lack the background knowledge and preparation to discuss religion (Black, 2003; Douglas, 2000; Noddings, 1993); and (c) believe the myth that Separation of Church and State inhibits any and all discussion of religion in public schools (Bishop & Nash, 2007; Escamilla & Nathenson-Meija, 2003).

Deploying critical literacy pedagogy. Recognizing the limited extent to which the PTs would discuss with their future students the relevance of the religious content in

Friends from the Other Side, In My Family, and Abuelito Eats with His Fingers, a critical reading intervention was deployed during the Week 8 class session to provide the PTs background information, to model critical literacy practices, and to challenge the PTs to read critically. The analysis of the PTs post-critical reading reflections served to document the PTs advances toward developing meta-knowledge of their own reading although the data for the written reflections was not as abundant as the other exercises. It revealed that while adopting a critical reading lens increased the PTs’ appreciation for the stories, the PTs’ Universalist stance was still in operation. The PTs’ post critical reading text-to-self connections were redundant of their initial personal connections and subject positioning. Via this intervention, PTs might have been able to critically distance themselves from the story enough to consider alternate perspectives of the works of

Latino critical fiction. Only a few respondents, as described in Chapter Four, indicated a shift in perspective as a result of their critical reading. The results of the critical literacy intervention and reading reflection activity demonstrate that one intervention is not enough for some PTs to develop the meta-knowledge necessary to recognize or reconsider their figured worlds around who or what is normal. These findings are

247 consistent with the finding of Apol, Sakuma, Reynolds, & Rop (2003) and point to a fundamental and longitudinal approach to influence different outcomes.

Figured Worlds. Increasing prospective teachers’ subject-matter knowledge and awareness of critical reading practices did not articulate a noticeable shift in the PTs’

Discourse regarding persons of Hispanic/Latino/Mexican heritage. Informed by the preceding research questions and findings, this sequence of study culminated in applying

Gee’s (2011) concept of figured worlds as a tool of inquiry to reveal the PTs’ notions and taken-for-granted assumptions about persons of Mexican heritage. The results of this analysis identified a pervasive narrative (global theme). In the worlds figured by many of the PTs, persons of Mexican heritage are construed as being like “us” Americans but they are not “us” Americans.

Uncritical, unconscious, and unreflective, this “like us but not us” theory reflects the anti-Latino narrative in the dominant Discourse and was reinforced by multiple PTs in this study. Since Discourses are “resistant to internal criticism and self-scrutiny, [and] since uttering viewpoints that seriously undermine them defines one as being outside them” (Gee, 2008, pp. 161-162) perhaps this explains why some PTs did not deviate from the Universalist “like us, but not us” theory in their post-critical reading reflections. Such behavior could be interpreted as deviant.

Implications and Future Research

Gee (2008) argues that when it comes to pervasive theories such as the “like us, but not us” theory that emerged through this analysis, each of us:

has a moral obligation to reflect consciously on these theories – to come to have a

248

meta-knowledge of them – when there is a reason to believe that a Discourse of

which we are a member advantages us or our group over other people or other

groups. Such meta-knowledge is the core ability that schools ought to instill… (p.

221)

The research in this dissertation indicates and confirms that the absence of self- reflection, meta-knowledge, and critical literacy practices that foster meta-knowledge could inhibit the advancement of the multicultural education agenda and sustain the types of biases/subject positions that rationalize censorship. Without meta-knowledge it is neither possible to reconsider nor reconstrue one’s figured worlds.

Move beyond diversity. This study expands upon Cai’s (2009) observation that

“in either the implementation of multicultural education or the reading of multicultural literature, we may focus on diversity only and do not talk about power structures and struggles” (p. 281). It shows that young prospective teachers are, indeed, likely to focus primarily on diversity. It shows that they are also likely to avoid conversations about religious beliefs and worldviews in addition to conversations about power structures and struggles. Their comfort in recognizing the possibilities for using picturebooks to promote appreciation for diversity could be a reflection of their own K-12 experiences of multicultural education. Future research could investigate this hypothesis.

The results of this study imply that in order to shift away from the focus on diversity and toward an expanded, robust multicultural education agenda, a commitment to fostering religious awareness is needed. Such a commitment could help teachers and students transcend the Universalist stance and move to a deeper level of understanding

249 for how religion and culture are often entwined. By embracing religious literacy as an objective of multicultural education it may be possible to facilitate the aims of the

Religious Freedom Act (2010), which establishes that children “be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, peace and universal brotherhood,

[and] respect for freedom of religion or belief of others” (Appendix C, Article 5).

Use multicultural children’s literature to foster religious awareness. The results of this study also imply that picturebooks such as In My Family, Friends from the

Other Side, and Abuelito Eats with His Fingers, which illustrate the seamlessness of religion and culture for some families of Mexican heritage, could be used as a springboard for raising religious awareness. As for including multicultural books with religious content in the curriculum, Nord (2010) reminds:

Several decades ago, most teachers were woefully unprepared to deal with

women's and minority history and literature (also areas of some sensitivity and

controversy). Educators did not say “Well, we better not teach that stuff.” (OK,

some did say that.) Rather we started preparing teachers to deal with

multiculturalism. So we should prepare them to deal with religion. (187)

Although the processes for deconstructing the myth of Separation of Church and

State and for preparing teachers and teacher educators to foster religious awareness about part of the multicultural education agenda will pose challenges initially, the alternative is that we may never actualize a pluralistic society based on mutual understanding and respect. This is important because as an increasingly diverse nation, religious literacy is

250 crucial to understanding the worldviews of the many different members of our global community.

Disrupt harmful narratives. Many prospective teachers want to make a difference in the world and hope to foster cultural awareness and appreciation for difference. Many are also members of the dominant social/cultural group. For this reason they, like millions of other Americans, may be inherently socialized to sustain the

Discourse of the dominant group. The results of this study imply that pervasive anti-

Latino narratives, which construe persons of Mexican heritage as non-American outsiders, influence some of the PTs’ language. Unchecked and unchallenged, these narratives could be reinforced by future teachers through their statements and comment as much as through their curricular choices for materials, content, and pedagogy.

It is crucial that the education community address this phenomenon. This study demonstrates the way some PTs’ Discourse subordinates Latinos and nourishes the

Latino Threat Narrative. Some PTs’ Discourse might also, for example, subordinate

Muslims and sustain the “Muslim Threat Narrative,” by which Muslims are suspected of being terrorists and/or having connections to terrorism. In truth, the dominant Discourse is steeped in narratives that cast persons of other religious, social, or cultural groups as outsiders and ultimately causes some children’s educations to suffer. Thus teacher education programs cannot be complicit with the status quo.

This research indicates that without curricula targeting the development of the capacity for meta-knowledge, teacher preparation that aims at fluency with different

251 cultures may not be sufficient to move teachers and their students from an appreciation of diverse cultures to successful citizenship in a pluralistic society.

Future Research

This study suggests that applying a critical lens to multicultural children’s literature may not be sufficient to disrupt the narratives of dominant Discourse and to develop the meta-knowledge that is necessary to fostering a multicultural education agenda. This thesis justifies and suggests the following research questions:

1. How do other populations of prospective teachers respond to works of

Latino children’s literature that contains religious content?

2. Are cultural insiders more capable of critically reading Latino literature for

children?

3. Do cultural insiders who have different subject positions also have a greater

capacity for meta-knowledge?

4. What kinds of Discourses and figured worlds would prospective,

preservice, and/or practicing teachers enact in response to inquiries with

picturebooks that depict Muslim or Hindu families or families of other

religious or cultural groups?

5. How do prospective, preservice, and/or practicing teachers regard

transcripts, recordings, or written texts of/by future educators that reveal

anti-Latino or other subordinating narratives? What are the outcomes of

analyzing these Discourses?

252

6. What degree and kind of preparation is needed to foster teachers with meta-

knowledge?

These questions aim first at confirming my findings thus far, generalizing their applicability, and refining future studies of the efficacy of curricula to cultivate meta- knowledge with an eye to devising effective teacher training.

253

References

Aaronsohn, E. (2000). Controversial literacy: A conversation with Sonia Nieto. The

Dragon Lode, 18(2), 1-7.

Ada, A. (2002). A magical encounter: Latino children's literature in the classroom, 2nd

edition. Columbus, OH: Allyn & Bacon.

Aldama, F. L. (2009). A user’s guide to postcolonial and Latino borderland fiction.

Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Anaya, R. (1992). The censorship of neglect. English Journal, 81(5), 18-20.

Anzaldua, G. (1996). Coatlaopeuh: She who had dominion over serpents. In A. Castillo

(Ed.) Goddess of the Americas, pp. 52-55. New York: Riverhead Books.

Apol, L. (1998). “But what does this have to do with kids?” Literary theory and

children’s literature in the teacher education classroom. Journal of Children’s

Literature, 24(2), 32 – 46.

Apol, L., Sakuma, A., Reynolds, T.M., & Rop, S.K. (2003). “When can we make paper

cranes?”: Examining pre-service teachers’ resistance to critical readings of

historical fiction. Journal of Literacy Research, 34, 429-464.

Applegate, A., & Applegate, M. (2004). The Peter Effect: Reading habits and attitudes of

preservice teachers. The Reading Teacher, 57, 554-563.

254

Arizpe, E. (2009). Sharing visual experiences of a new culture: Immigrant children’s

responses to Picturebooks and other visual texts. In J. Evans (Ed). Talking beyond

the page (pp. 134-151). London: Routledge.

Asselin, M. (2000). Confronting assumptions: preservice teachers' beliefs about reading

and literature. Reading Psychology, 21(1), 31-55.

Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research.

Qualitative Research, 1(3), 385-405.

Ayers, S. J., & Reid, S. (2005). Teaching about Religion in Elementary School: The

Experience of One Texas District. Social Studies, 96(1), 14-17.

Badillo, D. (2006). Latinos and the new immigrant church. Washington D. C.: The Johns

Hopkins University Press.

Banks, J. & Banks, C. (2010). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives, 7th Ed.

Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Barrera, R., Garza de Cortes (1997). Mexican American Children’s Literature in the

1990’s: Toward Authenticity. In V. Harris (Ed.), Using multiethnic literature in

grades K – 8 (pp. 129-153). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Barrera, R. (1992). The cultural gap in literature-based literacy instruction. Education

and Urban Society, 24(2), pp. 227-243.

Barrera, R., Liguori, O., and Salas, L. (1992). Ideas a literature can grow on: Key insights

for enriching and expanding children’s literature about the Mexican American

experience. In V. Harris (Ed.), Teaching multicultural literature in grades K – 8

(pp. 205-241). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.

255

Barton, D. & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: reading and writing in one

community. New York: Routledge.

Baskwill, J. (2008). Exploring teacher attitudes toward multicultural literature through

the Arts. In G. Taylor, K Hinton, & L. Moore (Eds.), Teaching multicultural

literature to help children understand ethnic diversity. Lewiston: The Edwin

Mellen Press.

Batalova, J. & Fix, M. (2011). Up for grabs: The gains and prospects of first- and

second- generation young adults. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

Baumann, J.F. & Duffy-Hester, A.M. (2002). Making sense of classroom worlds:

Methodology in teacher research. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson &

R. Barr (Eds.), Methods of literacy research: The methodology chapters from the

handbook of reading research, Volume III (pp. 1-22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Beach, R. (1993). Teachers’ introduction to reader-response theories. Urbana, IL:

National Council of Teachers of English.

Beach, R. (1997). Student’s resistance to engagement with multicultural literature. In T.

Rogers & A. Soter (Eds.), Reading across cultures (pp. 13-41). New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Beach, R. (1998). Constructing real and text worlds in responding to literature. Theory

into Practice, 37(3), 176-185.

Beers, K. (1996). Part I. “No time! No interest! No way!” The three voices of aliteracy.

School Library Journal, 42(2), 30-33.

256

Beers, K. (1996). Part II. “No time! No interest! No way!” The three voices of aliteracy.

School Library Journal, 42(3), 110-133.

Bercaw, L. & Collins, A. (2007). The discussion filter: Culturally relevant children’s

literature in the teacher education classroom. Teaching & Learning, 22(1), 22-33.

Bishop, P. A., & Nash, R. J. (2007). Teaching for Religious Literacy in Public Middle

Schools. Middle School Journal, 38(5), 20-31.

Bishop, R. (1994). Kaleidoscope: A multicultural booklist for grades K – 8. National

Council of Teachers of English: Urbana, IL.

Black, S. (2003). Teaching about religion. American School Board Journal, 190 (4), 50-

53.

Blackburn, M., & Clark, C. (2011). Analyzing talk in a long-term literature discussion

group: Ways of operating within LGBT-inclusive and queer discourses. Reading

Research Quarterly, 46(3), 222-248.

Bloom, P. (2007). Religion is natural. Developmental Science, 10 (1), 147-151.

Botelho, M. & Rudman, M. (2009). Critical multicultural analysis of children's

literature: Mirrors, windows, and doors. New York: Routledge.

Britzman, D. (1986). Cultural myths in the making of a teacher: Biography and social

structure in teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, 56(4), 442-456.

Britzman, D. (2003). Practice makes practice: a critical study of learning to teach, 2nd

Edition. Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Cai, M., & Bishop, R. S. (1994). Multicultural literature for children: Toward a

clarification of the concept. In A. H. Dyson & C. Genishi (Eds.), The need for

257

story: Cultural diversity in classroom and community (pp. 57-71). Urbana, IL:

National Council of Teachers of English.

Cai, M. (2002). Multicultural literature for children and young adults. Westport, CT:

Greewood Press.

Cai, M. (2003). Can we fly across cultural gaps on the wings of imagination? Ethnicity,

experience, and cultural authenticity. In D. Fox & K. Short (Eds.), Stories Matter:

The Complexity of Cultural Authenticity in Children’s Literature (pp. 167-181).

National Council of Teachers of English: Urbana, Il.

Cai, M. (2008). Transactional theory and the study of multicultural literature. Language

Arts, 85(3), 212-220.

Cai, M. (2009). Further dialogue with Mingshui Cai, Patrick Shannon, and Junko Yokota.

In M.J. Bothelho & M.K. Rudman Critical Multicultural Analysis of Children’s

Literature. (pp. 277-292). New York, NY: Routlege.

Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and practices. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.),

Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709-725). New York: Macmillian

Library Reference.

Candelaria, C., Aldama, A., Garcia, P., & Alvarez-Smith, A. (2004). Latino popular

culture. New York: Greenwood.

Carmichael, E. & Sayer, C. (1991). Skeleton at the feast: The Day of the Dead in Mexico.

Austin, TX: University of Texas.

258

Carr. A. (1992). On Feminist Spirituality. In J. Conn & W. Conn (Eds.), Horizons on

Catholic feminist theology (pp. 135-142). Washington, DC: Georgetown

University Press.

Castro, R. (2000). Chicano folklore: A guide to the folktales, traditions, rituals, and

religious practices of Mexican Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

Catholic US Conference of Catholic Bishops (2010). Retrieved from http://www.usccb.org/

Chandler, R. (2012, March 7). Racist cheer? High school forced to apologize for ‘USA!’

chant at basketball game. Retrieved on March 10, 2012 from

http://offthebench.nbcsports.com/2012/03/07/racist-cheer-high-school-forced-to-

apologize-for-usa-chant-at-basketball-game/

Chavez, L. (2008). The Latino threat: Constructing immigrants, citizens, and the nation.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Chomsky, A. (2007). “They take our jobs!”: and 20 other myths about immigration.

Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Clark, C., & Foster, A. (2005). Children’s and young people’s reading habits and

references: The who, what, why, where, and when. National Literacy Trust.

Comber, B. (2001). Negotiating critical literacies. School Talk, 6(3), 1-2.

Commeyras, M., Bisplinghoff, B.S., & Olson, J. (2003). Teachers as readers:

Perspectives on the importance of reading in teachers’ classrooms and lives.

Newark: International Reading Association.

259

Cooperative Children’s Book Center (2011). Retrieved from

http://www.education.wisc.edu/ccbc/

Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons and

Evaluative Criteria, Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3-21.

Creighton, D. (1997). Critical literacy in the elementary classroom. Language Arts, 74(6),

438-445.

Cremin, T., Mottram, M., Bearne, E., & Goodwin, P. (2008). Exploring teachers'

knowledge of children's literature. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38(4), 449-

464.

Cremin, T., Mottram, M., Collins, F., Powell, S., & Safford, K. (2009). Teachers as

readers: building communities of readers. Literacy, 43(1), 11-19.

Dahl, K. & Freppon, P. (1995). A comparison of innercity children’s interpretations of

reading and writing instruction in the early grades in skilled-based and whole

language classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(1), 50-74.

Davila, D. (2010). Leading a discussion of a literary text: Pre-service teachers

conceptions of literature. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National

Council of Teachers of English, Orlando, FL.

Decker,B. C. (1986). Aliteracy: What teachers can do to keep Johnny reading. Journal of

Teacher. Education, 37, 55-58.

Dillingofski, M. S. (1993). Turning teachers into readers: The teachers as readers project.

School Library Journal, 39(1), 31-33.

260

Douglass, S. (2000). Teaching about religion in national and state social studies

standards. Fountain Valley, CA: Council on Islamic Education; Nashville, TN:

First Amendment Center.

Draper, M. C., Barksdale-Ladd, M. A., & Radencich, M. C. (2000). Reading and writing

habits of preservice teachers. Reading Horizons, 40, 185-203.

Dreher, M. J. (2002/3). Motivating teachers to read. The Reading Teacher, 56(4), 338-

340.

Dudley-Marling, K. (2003). “I’m not from Pakistan”: Multicultural literature and the

problem of representation. In D. Fox & K. Short (Eds.), Stories matter: The

complexity of cultural authenticity in children’s literature (pp. 304-318).

National Council of Teachers of English: Urbana, IL.

Duke, N. & Martin, N. (2011). 10 things every literacy educator should know about

research. Reading Teacher, 65(1), 9-22.

Edmiston, B., & Enciso, P.E. (2002). Reflections and refractions of meaning: Dialogic

approaches to classroom drama and reading. In Flood, J., Lapp, D., Squire, J. &

Jenson, J. (Eds.), The Handbook of research on teaching and the English

language arts (pp. 868-880). New York: Simon & Schuster MacMillan.

Eggers-Piérola, C. (2005). Connections and commitments: Reflecting Latino values in

early childhood program. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Ellsworth, E. (1997). Teaching positions: Difference, pedagogy, and the power of

address. New York: Teachers College Press.

261

Enciso, P. (1997). Negotiating the meaning of difference: Talking back to multicultural

literature. In T. Rogers & A. Soter (Eds.), Reading across cultures (pp. 13-41).

New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Enciso, P. (1994). Cultural identity and response to literature: Running lessons from

Maniac Magee. Language Arts. 71, 524-533.

Enciso, P. (2001). Mediating multicultural children’s literature. In J. E. Many (Ed.),

Handbook of instructional practices for literacy teacher-educators (pp. 135-148).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.),

Handbook of research on teaching, 3rd edition. (119-161). New York, NY:

MacMillan Publishing Company, Inc.

Escamilla, K. & Nathenson-Mejia, S. (2003). Preparing Culturally Responsive Teachers:

Using Latino Children’s Literature in Teacher Education. Equity & Excellence,

36, 238-248.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language.

Harlow, England: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, MA.: Polity Press.

Fairclough, N. (1999). Global capitalism and critical awareness of language. Language

Awareness, 8(2), 71-83.

Fang, Z., Fu, D. & Lamme, L. (2003). The trivialization and misuse of multicultural

literature: Issues of representation and communication. In D. Fox & K. Short

262

(Eds.), Stories matter: the complexity of cultural authenticity in children’s

literature (pp. 284-303). National Council of Teachers of English: Urbana, IL.

Fisher, C. Fox, D. & Paille, E. (1996). Teacher education research in the English

Language Arts and reading. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.),

Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 410-441). New York:

Macmillian Library Reference.

Fox, D. & Short, K. (2003). Stories matter: the complexity of cultural authenticity in

children’s literature. National Council of Teachers of English: Urbana, IL.

Fraser, J. (1999). Between church and state: Religion and public education in a

multicultural America. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Freebody, P., Luke, A., & Gilbert, P. (1991). Reading positions and practices in the

classroom. Curriculum Inquiry, 21(4), 435-457.

Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed.

Freire, P. & Macedo, D. (1996). A dialogue: Culture, language, and race. In P. Leistyna,

A. Woodrum, & S. Sherblom (Eds.), Breaking free: The transformative power of

critical pedagogy (pp. 199 – 228). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review.

Furumoto. R. (2008). Future teachers and families explore humanization through

Chicana/o Latina/o children’s literature. In V. Lea & E.J. Sims (Eds.), Undoing

whiteness in the classroom: Critical educultural teaching approaches for social

justice activism (pp. 79-95). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Galda, L. & Beach, R. (2001). Response to literature as a cultural activity. Theory into

Practice, 36 (1), 64-73.

263

Gándara, P. (2008). The crisis in the education of Latino students. NEA Research

Visiting Scholars Series, 1a. Retrieved on February 28, 2012 from

http://www.nea.org/home/17404.htm

Garza, C.L. (2012). Artist statement. Retrieved on April 15, 2012 from

http://www.carmenlomasgarza.com/artiststatement.html.

Gee, J. (1999/2011). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method, 3rd Ed.

New York, NY: Routledge.

Gee, J. (1989). Literacy Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction. Journal of Education.

171 (1). 5-19.

Gee, J. (1998). What is Literacy. In Zamel, V. & Spack, R. (Eds.), Negotiating academic

literacies: Teaching and learning across languages and culture (pp. 51-60). NY:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gee, J. (2000). Teenagers in new times: A new literacy studies perspective. Journal of

Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 43 (5) 412-420.

Gee, J. (1996/2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses, 3rd Ed. New

York: Routledge.

Gee, J. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy, 2nd Ed.

New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Gerstein, M. (2003). The man who walked between the towers. New York: Roaring

Brook Press.

Gilton, D. (2007). Multicultural and ethnic children’s literature in the United States.

Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

264

Giroux, H. & McLaren, P. (1996). Teacher education and the politics of engagement: The

case for democratic schooling. In P. Leistyna, A. Woodrum, & S. Sherblom

(Eds.), Breaking free: The transformative power of critical pedagogy (pp. 301-

331). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for

qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming a qualitative researcher, 2nd edition. New York: Addison

Wesley Logman.

Gomez. K. (2005). Teachers of literacy, love of reading, and the literate self: A response

to Ann Powell-Brown. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49, 92-96.

Gomez, K. (2009). “Living the literate live”: How teachers make connections between

the personal and professional literate selves. Reading Psychology, 30, 20-50.

Graff, J. (2010). Countering narratives: Teachers’ discourse about immigrants and their

experiences within the realm of children’s and young adult literature. English

Teaching: Practice and Critique, 9(3), 106-131.

Green, C. & Oldendorf, S. (2005). Teaching religious diversity through children’s

literature. Childhood Education, 81(4), 209-218.

Grisham, D. (2000). Connecting theoretical conceptions of reading to practice:

Longitudinal study of elementary school teachers. Reading Psychology, 21, 145-

170.

265

Grossman, P. (1987). A passion for language: A case study of Colleen, a beginning

English teacher. Knowledge growth in a profession publication series. Stanford,

CA: Stanford University, School of Education.

Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher

education. New York: Teachers’ College Press.

Grossman, P., Wilson, S., & Shulman, L. S. (1989). Teachers of substance: Subject

matter knowledge for teaching. In M. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the

beginning teacher (pp. 23-36). New York: Pergamon Press.

Guevera, S. (2003). Authentic enough: Am I? Are you? Interpreting culture for children’s

literature. In D. Fox & K. Short (Eds.), Stories matter: the complexity of cultural

authenticity in children’s literature (pp. 50-60). National Council of Teachers of

English: Urbana, IL.

Gutiérrez, K. & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or

repertories of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19-25.

Hade, D. (1997). Reading Multiculturally. In V. Harris (Ed.), Using multiethnic

literature in the K-8 classroom (pp. 233-256). Urbana, IL: National Council of

Teachers of English.

Hale, D. (2002). Storyselling: Are publishers changing the way children read? Horn Book

Magazine, 78, 509–517.

Hamilton, V. (1988/2010). Boston Globe-Horn Book award acceptance speech. In A,

Adorr, & K. Cook (Eds.), Virginia Hamilton: Speeches, essays, & conversation.

New York: Blue Sky Press.

266

Harris, V. (1994). Review of against borders: Promoting books for a multicultural world.

Journal of Reading Behavior, 26(1), 117-120.

Harris, V. (1997). Using multiethnic literature in the K-8 classroom. New York:

Christopher-Gordon Publishers

Hayne, C. (1992). Living with our deepest differences: Religious diversity in the

classroom. In D. Byrnes, & G. Kieger (Eds.), Commonbonds: Anti-bias teaching

in a diverse society. Weaton, MD: Association for Childhood Education

International.

Hayne, C. & Thomas, O. (2007). Finding common ground. Nashville: First Amendment

Center.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and

classroom. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Heathington,B. S.,& Alexander, J. E. (1984). Do classroom teachers emphasize attitudes

towards reading? The Reading Teacher, 37, 484-488.

Herman-Wilmarth, J. (2010). More than book talks: Preservice teacher dialogue after

reading gay and lesbian children’s literature. Language Arts, 87(3), 187-198.

Hoffman, D. (1996). Culture and self in multicultural education: Reflections on

discourse, text, and practice. American Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 545-

569.

Holbrook, H. (1983). Motivating reluctant readers: A gentle push. In J. Thomas & R.

Loring (Eds.), Motivating children and young adults to read-2 (pp. 29-31).

Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.

267

Hollindale, P. (1988). Ideology and the children’s book. Signal, 55 (1), 3-22.

Holt-Reynolds (1992). Personal history-based beliefs as relevant prior knowledge in

course work. American Educational Journal, 29(2), pp. 325-349.

Howrey, S., & Whelan-Kim, K. (2009). Building Cultural Responsiveness in Rural,

Preservice Teachers Using a Multicultural Children's Literature Project. Journal

of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 30(2), 123-137.

Iser, W. (1978). The act of reading. London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Jipson, J. & Paley, N. (1991). The selective traditions in teachers’ choices of children’s

literature: Does it exist in the elementary classroom. English Education, 23(3).

148-159.

Ketter, J., & Lewis, C. (2001). Already reading texts and contexts: Multicultural literature

in a predominantly white rural community. Theory into Practice, 40, 175-183.

Kibler, J. (1996). Latino voices in children’s literature: Instructional approaches for

developing cultural understanding in the classroom. In J. LeBlanc Flores (Ed.),

Children of La Frontera: Binational efforts to serve Mexican migrant and

immigrant students (pp. 239–268). ???

Kiefer, B. (2010). Charlotte Huck’s children’s literature. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Kipling, J. (2008). Using children’s literature to teach about religion in America. Social

Science Docket, Summer – Fall, 61-62.

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology, 2nd Ed.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

268

Krashen, S. (1993/2011). The Power of Reading. Englewood, Col.: Libraries Unlimited,

Inc.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American

Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan: The journey of new teachers in

divers classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2004). A handbook for teacher research: from design to

implementation. New York, NY: Open University Press.

Lasky, K. (2003). To Stingo with love: An author’s perspective on writing outside one’s

culture. In D. Fox & K. Short (Eds.), Stories matter: The complexity of cultural

authenticity in children’s literature (pp. 84-92). National Council of Teachers of

English: Urbana, IL.

Lehman, B. (2007). Children’s literature and learning: Literacy study across the

curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.

Lehman, B. (2005). Religious representation in children’s literature: Disclosure through

character, perspective, and authority. In D. Henderson & J. May (Eds.), Exploring

culturally diverse literature for children and adolescents (pp. 11-21). Boston:

Pearson Education.

Lehman, B.A., Freeman, E.B., & Allen, V.G. (1994). Children’s literature and literary

instruction: “Literature-based” elementary teachers beliefs and practices. Reading

Horizons, 35(1), 3-29.

269

Lehman, B.A., Freeman, E.B., & Scharer, P.L. (2010). Reading globally, K-8:

Connecting students to the world through literature. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Lewis, C. (1999). Teaching literature to adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly. 34(1),

114-128.

Lewison, M., Flint, A., and Van Sluys, K. (2002). Taking on critical literacy: The journey

of newcomers and novices. Language Arts, 75(5), 382-392.

Lewison, M., Leland, C., Flint, A. S., & Möller, K. J. (2002). Dangerous discourses:

Using controversial books to support engagement, diversity, and democracy. The

New Advocate, 15, 215-226.

Lopez, T. and Serrato, P. (2001). A new mestiza primer: Borderlands philosophy in the

children’s books of Gloria Anzaldua. In T. Edwards and E. De Wolfe (Eds.), Such

news of the land: U.S. women nature writers (pp. 204 – 216). Hanover, NH:

University Press of New England.

Lortie, D. (1975/2002). Schoolteacher. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Lowery, R., & Sabis-Burns, D. (2007). From borders to bridges: Making cross-cultural

connections through multicultural literature. Multicultural Education, 14(4), 50-

54.

Luke, A. & Freebody, P. (1997). Shaping the social practices of reading. In S. Muspratt,

A. Luke, & P. Freebody (Eds.), Constructing critical literacies: Teaching and

learning textual practice (pp. 185-225). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

270

Luke, A., Cooke, J. & Luke, C. (1986). The selective tradition in action: Gender bias in

student teachers’ selection of children’s literature. English Education, 18(4), 209-

218.

Manna, A. L., & Misheff, S. (1987). What teachers say about their own reading

development. Journal of Reading, 31(2), 160-168.

Mariani, P. (Ed.). (1991). Critical fictions: The politics of imaginative writing.

Washington: Bay Press.

Mathis, J. (2001). Respond to stories with stories: Teachers discuss multicultural

children’s literature. The Social Studies, 92(4), 155-160.

McCallum, R. & Stephens, J. (2011). Ideology and Children’s Books. In S. Wolf, K.

Coats, P. Enciso, & C. Jenkins (Eds.), Handbook of research on children’s and

young adult literature. (pp. 359-371). New York, NY: Routledge.

Mckool, S., & Gespass, S. (2009). Does Johnny's reading teacher love to read? How

teachers' personal reading habits affect instructional practices. Literacy Research

& Instruction, 48(3), 264-276.

McLaughlin, M., & DeVoogd, G. L. (2004). Critical literacy: Enhancing students’

comprehension of text. New York, NY: Scholastic.

McNair, J. C. (2003). “But The Five Chinese Brothers is one of my favorite books!”:

Conducting sociopolitical critiques of children’s literature with preservice

teachers. Journal of Children’s Literature, 29(1), 46–53.

271

Medina, C. & Enciso, P. (2001). “Some words are messengers/Hay palabras mensajares”:

Interpreting sociopolitical themes in Latino/a literature for children. The New

Advocate, 15,1, 35-48.

Medina, C. (2006). Interpreting Latino/a literature as critical fictions. The ALAN Review,

Winter, 71-77.

Menard, V. (2004). The Latino Holiday Book, 2nd Edition. New York, NY: Marlowe &

Company.

Moffitt, J. (2006). Our Lady of Guadalupe: The paintings, the legend, and the reality.

London: McFarland & Co.

Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching:

Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into

Practice, 31, 132-141.

Montero, K. & Robertson, J. (2006). “Teachers can’t teach what they don’t know”:

Teaching about international and global children’s literature to facilitate culturally

responsive pedagogy. Journal of Children’s Literature, 32(2), 27 – 35.

Moore, R. & Ritter, S. (2008). “Oh yea, I’m Mexican. What type are you?” Changing

the way preservice teachers interpret and respond to literature identities of

children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 505-514.

Moore, D. (2007). Overcoming religious illiteracy: A cultural studies approach to the

study of religion in secondary education. New York, NY: Palgrave/Macmillan.

272

Morrison,T. G., Jacobs, J. S., & Swinyard,W. R. (1999). Do teachers who read personally

use recommended literacy practices in their classrooms? Reading Research and

Instruction, 38(2), 81-100.

Morrison, T. (1992). Playing in the dark: Whiteness and the literary imagination.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mour,S. I. (1977). Do teachers read? The Reading Teacher, 30, 397-401.

Muchmore, J. (2001). The story of “Anna”: A life history study of the literacy beliefs and

teaching practices of an urban high school English teacher. Teacher Education

Quarterly, 28(3), 89-110.

Mueller, D. L. (1973). Teacher attitudes toward reading. Journal of Reading, 17, 202-

205.

Naidoo, J. (2010). Celebrating cuentos: Promoting Latino children's literature and literacy

in classrooms and libraries. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.

Nathanson, S. Pruslow, J., Levitt. (2008). The Reading Habits and Literacy Attitudes of

Inservice and Prospective Teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 313-321.

Nathenson-Mejia, S. & Escamilla, K. (2003). Connecting with Latino children: Bridging

cultural gaps with children’s literature. Bilingual Research Journal. 27(1). 101-

116.

National Council for the Social Studies. (1998). Study about religions in the social

studies curriculum: A position statement of the National Council for the Social

Studies. Silver Springs, MD: NCSS. Retrieved on May 27, 2011 from

http://www.socialstudies.org/positions/religion

273

National Council for the Social Studies. (2012, January 30). Joint statement in opposition

to book censorship in the Tucson Unified School District. Retrieved on February

28, 2012 from

http://www.ncss.org/news_and_advocacy/joint_statement_tuscon_book_censorship

National Education Association. (2002, October 7). NEA’s Read Across America

Releases Hispanic Book List. Hispanic Business. Retrieved on February 28, 2012

from

http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2002/10/4/neas_read_across_america_releases_hispanic.htm

National Hispanic Media Coalition. (2012). AMERICAN HATE RADIO. How A

Powerful Outlet For Democratic Discourse Has Deteriorated Into Hate, Racism

And Extremism A report by the National Hispanic Media Coalition January 2012

Neusner, J. (2009). World religions in America, 4th edition. Louisville, KY: Westminster

John Knox Press.

Nieto, S. & Bode, P. (2008). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of

multicultural education (5th edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Nieto, S. (2002). Language, culture, and teaching: Critical perspectives for a new century.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Nieto, S. (2007). Testing the Limits.

Journal of Curriculum & Pedagogy, 4(1), 23-26

Noddings, N. (1993). Educating for intelligent belief or unbelief. New York: Teachers

College Press.

Nodelman, P. (2008). The hidden adult. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

274

Nord, W. & Haynes, C. (1998). Taking Religion Seriously Across the Curriculum.

Nashville, TN: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and

First Amendment Center.

Nord, W. (2010) Does God Make a Difference? New York, NY: Oxford University

Press.

Nord, W. (2000). Multiculturalism and religion. In C. Ovando & P. McLaren (Eds.),

Multicultalism and bilingual education (pp. 62-81). New York, NY: McGraw

Hill.

Pace, B. (2001). Getting to the "knowing how" of reading literature. Contemporary

Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1, (4) 472-479.

Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy

construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.

Perry, T. (2010). Family law, feminist legal theory, and the problem of racial hierarchy.

In M. Fineman (Ed). Transcending the boundaries of law: generations of

feminism and legal theory (pp. 243-257). London: Routledge.

Peyton, M. (2008). A list of picture books to promote religious understanding. Early

Childhood Education Journal. 35, 387-389.

Peyton, M., & Jalongo, M. (2008). Make me an instrument of your peace: Honoring

religious diversity and modeling respect for faiths through children’s literature.

Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 301-303.

275

Pew Hispanic Center & Kaiser Family Foundation (2004). National survey of Latinos:

Education, summary & chartpack, publication #3031. Menlo Park, CA: The

Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Phelps. S. (2011). Critical literacy: Using nonfiction to learn about Islam. Journal of

Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(3), 190-198.

Pierce, K. M. (2006). Recognizing and resisting change: A teacher’s professional

journey. Language Arts, 83(5), 427-436.

Poole, S. (1997). Our Lady of Guadalupe: The origins and sources of a Mexican national

symbol. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.

Powell-Brown, A. (2003/2004). Can you be a teacher of literacy if you don’t love to

read? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47, 284-288.

Prothero, S. (2007). Religious literacy: What every American needs to know… and

doesn’t. San Francisco, CA: Harper.

Rasinski, T. and DeFord, D. (1988). First Graders' Conceptions if Literacy: A Matter of

Schooling. Theory Into Practice, 27(1), 53.

Rasinski, T., and Padak, N. D. (1990). Multicultural learning through children’s

literature. Language Arts, 67(6), 576-580.

Rea, M. L., and Parker, A. R. (2005). Designing and Conducting Survey Research. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ream, K. and Vasquez, L. (2010). Overview of Latino children and U.S. public

education. In J.C. Naidoo (Ed.), Celebrating Cuentos: Promoting Latino

276

children's literature and literacy in classrooms and libraries (pp. 3-18). Santa

Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.

Reutzel, D. R., & Sabey, B. (1996). Teacher beliefs and children’s concepts about

reading: Are they related? Reading Research and Instruction, 35, 323-342.

Rice, P. (2005). It “ain’t” always so: Sixth graders’ interpretation of Hispanic-American

stories with universal themes. Children’s Literature in Education, 36(4), 343-362.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula,

T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education

(pp. 102 – 119). New York, NY: Macmillian Library Reference.

Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship between

teachers’ beliefs and reading comprehension instruction. American Educational

Research Journal, 28(3), 559-586.

Rochman, H. (1993). And yet… Beyond political correctness. In B. Hearne & R. Sutton

(Eds.), Evaluating children’s books: A critical look (pp. 133 – 148). Urbana-

Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Graduate School of Library and Information

Science.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978/1994). The reader the text the poem: The transactional theory of

the literary work. Paperback ed. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

277

Rosenblith, S., & Bailey, B. (2007). Comprehensive Religious Studies in Public

Education: Educating for a Religiously Literate Society. Educational Studies,

42(2), 93-111.

Rummel, M.K., & Quintero, P. (1997). Teachers’ reading/teachers’ lives. Albany, NY:

State University of New York Press.

Sanders, J., Foyil, K., & Graff, J. (2010). Conveying a stance of religious pluralism in

children’s literature. Children’s Literature in Education. 41, 168-188.

Santa Ana, O. (2002). Brown tide rising: Metaphors of Latinos in contemporary

American public discourse. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Scharer, P. (1992). Teachers in transition: An exploration of changes in teachers and

classrooms during implementation of literature-based reading instruction.

Research in the teaching of English, 26(4), 408-445.

Schmidt, R. Armstrong, L. & Everett. T. (2007). Teacher resistance to critical

conversation: Exploring why teachers avoid difficult topics in their classrooms.

The NERA Journal, 43(2), 49-55.

Schultz, M. (2011, Jan. 3). Upcoming NewSouth “Huck Finn” eliminates the “N” word.

Publishers Weekly, 258(1), 6-8.

Scott, J. E. (1996). Self-efficacy: A key to literacy learning. Reading Horizons, 36, 195-

213.

Seidl, B. (2007). Working with communities to explore and personalize culturally

relevant pedagogies: Push, double images, and race talk. Journal of Teacher

Education, 20(10), 1-16.

278

Shannon, P. (1994). I am the canon. Journal of Children’s Literature, 20(1), 1-5.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of a new reform. Harvard

Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Simpson, A. (1996). Critical questions: Whose questions? The Reading Teacher, 50(2),

118-127.

Sims Bishop, R. (1997). Selecting Literature for a Multicultural Curriculum. In V. Harris

(Ed.), Using multiethnic literature in the K-8 classroom (pp. 1-19). Urbana, IL:

National Council of Teachers of English.

Singer, J., & Smith, S. (2003). The potential of multicultural literature: Changing

understanding of self and others. Multicultural Perspectives, 5(2), 17-23.

Smith, M. C. (1989). Reading attitudes of pre-service education majors. Reading

Horizons, 29, 230-234.

Smith, K. P. (1993). The multicultural ethic and connections to literature for children and

young adults. Library Trends, 41(30), 340-353.

Smith, S. (2002). "Would I use this book?" White, female education students examine

their beliefs about teaching. New Advocate, 15 (1) 57-66.

Stephens, J. (1992). Language and ideology in children’s fiction. New York, NY:

Longman.

Stood-Hill, B. & Amspaugh-Corson, L. (2008). Children’s literature: Discovery for a

lifetime, 4th Ed., New York: Prentice Hall.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, C. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and

procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

279

Street, B. (1997). Cross-cultural approaches to literacy (pp. 1-12). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Street, B. (2000). Literacy events and literacy practices: Theory and practice in the new

literacy studies. In Martin-Jones, M. & Jones, K. Multilingual literacies: Reading

and writing different worlds (pp. 18-29). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamin

Publishing Co.

Taxel, J. (1992). The politics of children’s literature: Reflections on multiculturalism,

political correctness, and Christopher Columbus. In V. Harris (Ed.), Teaching

multicultural literature in graces K – 8. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon

Publishers, Inc.

Taxel, J. (1994). Political correctness, cultural politics, and writing for young people. The

New Advocate, 7(2), 93-108.

Trotta, L. (1998). Jude: A pilgrimage to the saint of last resort. New York, NY: Harper

Collins.

Trousdale, A. (2005). Intersections of spirituality, religion and gender in children’s

literature. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 19(1), 61-79.

US Department of Education. (2008) Schools and Staffing Survey. Retrieved on June 1,

2011 from: http://nces.ed.gov/

US Department of State Office, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (2010).

International Religions Freedom Report.

Van Dijk, T. (2006). Ideological discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies,

11(2), 115-140.

280

Vatican II Council (1963). Retrieved on June 1, 2011 from:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/.

Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking

the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20–33.

Wainer, A. (2004). The new Latino South and the challenge to public education:

Strategies for educators and policymakers in emerging immigrant communities.

Los Angeles, CA: Tomás Rivera Policy Institute.

Weinstein, C. (1990). Prospective elementary teachers’ beliefs about teaching:

Implications for teacher education. Teaching & Teacher Education, 6(3), 279-

290.

Whitaker, C., Salend, S. & Elhoweris, H. (2009). Religious diversity in schools:

Addressing the issues. Intervention in School and Clinic. 44 (5), 314-319.

Wiley (1997). Religious affiliation as a source of variation in childrearing values and

parental regulation of young children. Mind, Culture, and Activity. 4(2), 86-107.

Willis, A. & Harris, V. (1997). Preparing preservice teachers to teach multicultural

literature. In J. Flood, S. Brice Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds), Handbook of research on

teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (pp. 460-469).

New York, NY: Macmillan Library Reference USA.

Wollman-Bonilla, J. (1998). Outrageous viewpoints: Teachers’ criteria for rejecting

works of children’s literature. Language Arts, 75 (4), 287-295.

281

Woodson, J. (2003). Who can tell my story? In D. Fox & K. Short (Eds.), Stories Matter:

The Complexity of Cultural Authenticity in Children’s Literature, (pp. 41-45).

National Council of Teachers of English: Urbana, IL.

Yoder, D. (1974). Toward a definition of folk religion. Western Folklore, 33(1), 2-15.

Zancanella, D. (1991). Teachers reading/readers teaching. Five teachers’ personal

approaches to literature and their teaching of literature. Research in the Teaching

of English, 25(1), 5–32.

Zarrillo, J. (1989). Teachers’ interpretations of literature-based reading. The Reading

Teacher, 43(1), 22-28.

Zeece, P. (1998). “Can God come here?”: Using religion-based literature in early

childhood settings. Early Childhood Education Journal, 25(4), 243-246.

Zeichner, K., Grant, C., Gay, G., Gillette, M., Valli, L., & Villegas, A. M. (1998). A

research informed vision of good practice in multicultural teacher education:

Design principles. Theory into Practice, 37(2), 163-211.

282

Appendix A: “The Miracle”

283

284

Appendix B: Herb Woman’s Bedroom

285

286

Appendix C: Abuelito’s Statues and Candles

287

288

Appendix D: Literature Response Questions

In My Family •Describe your general response to the book. • Was there anything that surprised you about Carmen Lomas Garza’s depiction (textual or visual) of life in Kingsville Texas from the late 1950s through the 1970s? If so, what? • Would you use this book in a classroom? Why or why not? Please be specific. • If you were to use this book with your future students, how likely would you discuss the religious significance of the water tank painting, “The Miracle”? Please explain your rationale.

Friends from the Other Side • Describe your general response to the book. • Both In My Family and Friends from the Other Side are based on the authors’ lived experiences in the south Texas region. Describe anything you might have noticed between these two picturebooks. • Would you use this book in a classroom? Why or why not? Please be specific. • If you were to use this book with your future students, how comfortable would you feel in discussing the paintings that are depicted on the walls of the herb woman’s bedroom? Please explain your rationale.

Abuelito Eats with His Fingers •Describe your general response to the book. • Would you use this book in a classroom? Why or why not? Please be specific. • If you were to use this book with your future students, how likely would you initiate a discussion about the meaning of the candles and statues in Abuelito’s house? Please explain your rationale.

289

Appendix E: Week 8 Discussion Prompts

“Children’s social location, age, historical knowledge, and prior experience with the cultural themes and genre of the text shape how the children make sense of the story” (Botelho & Rudman, 2009, p. 11).

“Children ‘read’ the social context in which they interpret literature and produce readings according to what they believe their teacher wants in that particular situation” (Hade, 1997, p. 238).

A teacher’s approach to instruction “must accommodate learning how to read race, class, and gender.” Students need to have the opportunity to think about their “assumptions about race, class, and gender, about the assumptions the texts seem to suggest, and how they use these assumptions to interpret text” (Hade, 1997, p. 238).

As readers, we “do not always need to read with an author; we can also read against an author, questioning and even refusing to become the kind of sympathetic readers of their stories that authors ask us to become” (Hade, 1997, p. 252).

Readers can use their “background knowledge to understand relationships between their ideas and the ideas presented by the author of the text” (McLaughlin & DeVoogd, 2004, p. 53).

By taking a critical lens while reading, readers can “raise questions about whose voices are represented, whose voices are missing, and who gains and who looses by the reading of a text” (McLaughlin & DeVoogd, 2004, p. 53).

290

Appendix F: Week 8 Critical Reading Instructional Framework

CRITICAL READING AS COMPREHENSION: EXPANDING READER RESPONSE McLaughlin & DeVoogd (2004). Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(1), pp. 52-62).

FIVE STEP INSTRUCTIONAL FRAMEWORK 1. Explain 2. Demonstrate 3. Guide 4. Practice 5. Reflect

Step 1: Explain What does it mean to be critically aware as a reader?

Step 2: Demonstrate Read a book aloud. While reading, model how you think about the book aloud.

General questions to consider prior to reading • What are my biases? • What is my relationship to the culture being depicted in the story? • What is my background knowledge? Is it adequate to critically read the text? • How does my background knowledge inform my interpretation of the text?

General questions to consider during reading • Whose viewpoint is expressed in the text? (What perspective does the storyteller take?) • What does the writer/author or publisher want us to think? (How are readers positioned?) • Whose voices are missing, silenced, or discounted? (How is bias conveyed in the text?) • Does the text and/or peritext substantiate claims of accuracy? How? • Where are there gaps in the text and what do the gaps imply? [Some of the aforementioned questions are from McLaughlin & DeVoogd. Some are adapted from other sources.]

Additional questions for a text set that includes religious themes • How much information about the religion is shared by the author and why? • What images are shown in the story? How do these contribute to (or distract from) the story? • What is the author’s relationship to the religion being depicted? [These questions are adapted from other sources.]

Step 3: Guide Organize students into small groups or pairs. Lead students through a guided reading. Encourage students to offer critical responses during the guided practice.

Step 4: Practice Invite students to independently practice critical reading.

Step 5: Reflect Welcome students to reflect on what they learned through the critical lens. • What did I learn? • Did the critical reading lens lead me to shift my stance? If so, how? • What kind of connections did I make (text to self; text to text; text to world)? • What does my critical reading suggest about the author’s representation of culture in relationship to: 1. a reader who is lives within the culture; and 2. a reader who lives outside of the culture that is represented in the text? • How might I apply what I learned to other texts?

291

Appendix G: Week 8 Background Information

292

5/10/12

Background Knowledge: The Lady of Guadalupe

Historical Devotions to Guadalupe:

The Conquest of the Americas

Also see the children’s books: Spanish Missions and Miguel Hidalgo Y Costilla

New Spain

EXHIBIT Oakland Museum of California

Description: Art and the Spanish Conquest

The Spaniards used art to conquer the region. Many works of art were discovered in the collections of local churches and museums, preserved, and brought together for this unprecedented exhibition.

!"#$%&'())$**&+(,-,#".,& /01-23&4-,&51-,%.*%(3&6!&

/(78&9:;;<=!"#$%"&'()"*+" ,$'('-$./0"12/".'345467"82/" -/6/4(7"'4("82/"%/'-38)3&>?&@A?&&&&&

293

5/10/12

Mexican Independence from Spain 1810 Mexican Independence from Spain 1810

The Role of Guadalupe in Mexican American Culture 2010 Celebration Mexican Independence (See handout: Goddess of the Americas)

$0?0+!0&#@AB#C<&D<;#%8#EF,9,/FG0#

!"#$%#&'()*$+,#-'()*$.),'/0$+/12,$$ !"#$%&%'("#)#*(%+,-#.%%!/0&# J(&0--#

294

5/10/12

!"#$%&'"()*+(,&

-./0.(&"1&2)$3$%)4+&5,$,)+& 6.(37"/8&9:."&

;"%$(3$&!<4+=>&&!"#$#%&$'"('$)*'+#,-$'%-'$)*'.&#/&0'"('12%3%425*>&&?@AB>&&&

C"%$(3"&3+&%$&C"7$>&&6%'.&#/*0'3*'12%3%425*'7"0'4%'8%#%'3*'9%#&4:0'9"0#"*>&?@BB&

J.%%$/D&E%.(,"(&K&-./0.(&"1&2)$3$%)4+& '+L.#"&E.,D&HII@>&&!"#$%&'()*+,%(*-.&

9)/&!$3D&"1&E"(,/"F+/7D>&&G4/.%&HI??&

295

Appendix H: Pilot Survey

296

A Pilot Study Survey of Prospective Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Reading and Selected Topics in Children’s & Young Adult Literature Please answer the following questions based solely on your opinion and experience. Please avoid writing what you think others may want you to say. This questionnaire has NO bearing on your grade in any course. Your responses are anonymous, as your name is not linked to this document.

Please provide the following background information.

Do you intend to become a teacher? What grade level do you hope to teach? Elementary School Middle School High School Have you taken any children’s literature courses prior to Spring Quarter 2011? What is your age? What is your gender? Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin NO, not of Hispanic, Latino, or YES, Mexican, Mexican YES, Puerto Rican (2010 US Census)? Spanish origin American, Chicano YES, Cuban YES, of another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin: What is your race (2010 US Census)? White Chinese Filipino Mark one or more boxes. Black, African American Japanese Native Hawaiian Am Indian or Alaska Native Korean Guamanian or Chamorro Asian Indian Vietnamese Samoan Other Race: Other Asian: Other Pacific Island:

How do you define “reading for pleasure?” What kind of texts, genres, or mediums do you associate with this stance?

How do you define “reading for curiosity?” What kind of texts, genres, or mediums do you associate with this stance?

Can a teacher teach students to voluntarily read for pleasure or curiosity? Why or why not?

297

The term “reader” is sometimes used to describe a person. What does it mean to be a “reader?”

Can a teacher who is not a “reader,” effectively foster a love of reading among his or her students? Why or why not?

Did any of your teachers inspire you to read for pleasure or curiosity? If yes, how did the teacher(s) inspire you?

Was there a book or text that first got you excited about reading? If yes, what was the name of the book or text? Why did this book / text excite you to read?

In the past year, approximately how many books did you voluntarily read that featured a protagonist whose gender, ethnicity, culture, sexual orientation, or spiritual/religious beliefs differed from yours?

0 – 3 books 4 – 7 books 8 – 11 books 12 or more books

Please check all that apply. The protagonist(s) differed from me in terms of: Gender Ethnicity Culture Sexual Orientation Spiritual / religious beliefs

298

Please respond to the following statements. Please check only one box per statement.

Strongly Somewhat NEITHER Somewhat Strongly Statement DISAGREE DISAGREE Agree/Disagree AGREE AGREE I am confident in my reading abilities.

Outside of school/work, I habitually read for pleasure.

Outside of school/work, I habitually read for curiosity.

Outside of school/work, I usually read texts by the same author or in the same book series.

Outside of school/work, I usually read magazines.

Outside of school/work, I usually read Facebook, MySpace, or other social networking websites.

Outside of school/work, I usually read blogs, wikis, or other websites.

Outside of school/work, I often read books/texts intended for children or teen/young adult audiences.

I prefer to listen to audio versions of text when they are available.

I mostly read school/work materials.

I often share the texts I read for pleasure with my family, friends and/or colleagues.

I often share the texts I read for curiosity with my family, friends, and/or colleagues.

I would read more for pleasure, if I knew more about which sources, texts, or authors to choose.

I would read more for curiosity, if I knew more about which sources, texts, or authors to choose.

I think I will expand my personal reading habits as a future teacher.

I think a teacher who is not a “reader” could develop a love of reading in conjunction with her/his students.

I think teachers should know and be able to recommend children’s and/or young adult book titles to students.

Growing up, I saw the adults in my household read habitually for pleasure.

Growing up, I saw the adults in my household read habitually for curiosity.

Growing up, I saw the adults in my household read frequently for work and/or school.

Growing up, others in my household identified me as a “reader.”

299

For the next set of questions, imagine that you are a teacher at a public school.

How likely would you read and discuss with your students a children’s or young adult book that examines death?

Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely Please explain your rationale:

How likely would you read and discuss with your students a children’s or young adult book, which presents a perspective held by some people that deceased individuals have spirits and these spirits can visit the living?

Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely Please explain your rationale:

How likely would you read and discuss with your students a children’s book that highlights the life and beliefs of:

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely

Please explain your rationale:

The Dalai Lama.

Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely Please explain your rationale:

Mohandas Gandhi

Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely Please explain your rationale:

Cesar Chavez:

Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely Please explain your rationale:

300

Provide a short description for this image. (1 – 2 lines max.)

How likely would you select for your classroom library a children’s or young adult book that features this image?

Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely

Explain your rationale:

How likely would you lead a discussion about the meaning of this image as it might be depicted in the book? Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely

Explain your rationale:

Provide a short description for this image. (1 – 2 lines max.)

How likely would you select for your classroom library a children’s or young adult book that features this image?

Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely

Explain your rationale:

How likely would you lead a discussion about the meaning of this image as it might be depicted in the book?

Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely

Explain your rationale:

301

Provide a short description for this image. (1 – 2 lines max.)

How likely would you select for your classroom library a children’s or young adult book that features this image?

Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely Explain your rationale:

How likely would you lead a discussion about the meaning of this image as it might be depicted in the book? Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely

Explain your rationale:

Provide a short description for this image. (1 – 2 lines max.)

How likely would you select for your classroom library a children’s or young adult book that features this image?

Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely

Explain your rationale:

How likely would you lead a discussion about the meaning of this image as it might be depicted in the book?

Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely Explain your rationale:

302

Provide a short description for this image. (1 – 2 lines max.)

How likely would you select for your classroom library a children’s or young adult book that features this image?

Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely

Explain your rationale:

How likely would you lead a discussion about the meaning of this image as it might be depicted in the book? Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely

Explain your rationale:

Provide a short description for this image. (1 – 2 lines max.)

How likely would you select for your classroom library a children’s or young adult book that features this image?

Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely

Explain your rationale:

How likely would you lead a discussion about the meaning of this image as it might be depicted in the book?

Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely

Explain your rationale:

303

Provide a short description for this image. (1 – 2 lines max.)

How likely would you select for your classroom library a children’s or young adult book that features this image?

Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely

Explain your rationale:

How likely would you lead a discussion about the meaning of this image as it might be depicted in the book? Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely

Explain your rationale:

Rotate page to Provide a short description for this image. (1 – 2 lines max.) view image:

How likely would you select for your classroom library a children’s or young adult book that features this image?

Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely

Explain your rationale:

How likely would you lead a discussion about the meaning of this image as it might be depicted in the book?

Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely Very likely

Explain your rationale:

304

Appendix I: Week 1 Survey (Main Study)

305

AU2011 TL467: Introduction to Children's Literature. Week 1

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

3OHDVHSURYLGHWKHIROORZLQJEDFNJURXQGLQIRUPDWLRQ 1$0(/DVW)LUVW(;'DYLOD 'HQLVH

$*(

*(1'(5

+2:'2<28,'(17,)< <2855$&( :KLWH$IULFDQ $PHULFDQ3XHUWR5LFDQ &KLQHVHHWF "

&$5((52%-(&7,9( WHDFKHUOLEUDULDQ SV\FKRORJ\VRFLDOZRUNHWF

35()(55('*5/(9(/ )25&$5((5 3UH.

)RUWKLVODVWSDUWRIWKHVXUYH\LPDJLQHWKDW\RXDUHWHDFKLQJDW\RXUORFDOSXEOLFVFKRROLQ\RXUSUHIHUUHGJUDGHOHYHO 3OHDVHFRQVLGHU\RXUERRNVHOHFWLRQVIRU\RXUVWXGHQWV

+RZOLNHO\ZRXOG\RXVHOHFWIRU\RXUFODVVOHVVRQDFKLOGUHQ·VERRNWKDWGHYLDWHV IURPWKHYHUVLRQVRI86KLVWRU\WKDWDUHWDXJKWLQ.²SXEOLFVFKRROV" 9HU\81/LNHO\ 6RPHZKDW81/LNHO\ 6RPHZKDW/LNHO\ 9HU\/LNHO\

3OHDVHH[SODLQ\RXUUDWLRQDOH

+RZOLNHO\ZRXOG\RXVHOHFWIRU\RXUFODVVOHVVRQDFKLOGUHQ·VERRNWKDWSUHVHQWV ZRUOGYLHZVRUVSLULWXDOLGHDVWKDWGLIIHUIURPPDLQVWUHDP$PHULFDQFXOWXUH" 9HU\81/LNHO\ 6RPHZKDW81/LNHO\ 6RPHZKDW/LNHO\ 9HU\/LNHO\

3OHDVHH[SODLQ\RXUUDWLRQDOH

Page 1

306

AU2011 TL467: Introduction to Children's Literature. Week 1 +RZOLNHO\ZRXOG\RXVHOHFWIRU\RXUFODVVDFKLOGUHQ·VERRNWKDWSUHVHQWVQRQ WUDGLWLRQDOIDPLO\VWUXFWXUHVVXFKDVWZRPRPVRUWZRGDGV" 9HU\81/LNHO\ 6RPHZKDW81/LNHO\ 6RPHZKDW/LNHO\ 9HU\/LNHO\

3OHDVHH[SODLQ\RXUUDWLRQDOH

+RZOLNHO\ZRXOG\RXVHOHFWIRU\RXUFODVVDFKLOGUHQ·VERRNWKDWGHVFULEHVFODVVLVP SRYHUW\DQGRUKRPHOHVVQHVVDVHOHPHQWVRIWRGD\·VVRFLHW\" 9HU\81/LNHO\ 6RPHZKDW81/LNHO\ 6RPHZKDW/LNHO\ 9HU\/LNHO\

3OHDVHH[SODLQ\RXUUDWLRQDOH

+RZOLNHO\ZRXOG\RXVHOHFWIRU\RXUFODVVDFKLOGUHQ·VERRNWKDWGHSLFWVUDFLVPDV SDUWRIWRGD\·VPDLQVWUHDPFXOWXUH" 9HU\81/LNHO\ 6RPHZKDW81/LNHO\ 6RPHZKDW/LNHO\ 9HU\/LNHO\

3OHDVHH[SODLQ\RXUUDWLRQDOH

+RZOLNHO\ZRXOG\RXVHOHFWIRU\RXUFODVVDFKLOGUHQ·VERRNWKDWH[DPLQHVJHQGHU LGHQWLWLHVWKDWGLIIHUIURPGRPLQDQWJHQGHUH[SHFWDWLRQV" 9HU\81/LNHO\ 6RPHZKDW81/LNHO\ 6RPHZKDW/LNHO\ 9HU\/LNHO\

3OHDVHH[SODLQ\RXUUDWLRQDOH

+RZOLNHO\ZRXOG\RXVHOHFWIRU\RXUFODVVDFKLOGUHQ·VERRNWKDWFRXOGEHSHUFHLYHG DVFRQWURYHUVLDOE\SDUHQWVRUPHPEHUVRIWKHVFKRROFRPPXQLW\" 9HU\81/LNHO\ 6RPHZKDW81/LNHO\ 6RPHZKDW/LNHO\ 9HU\/LNHO\

3OHDVHH[SODLQ\RXUUDWLRQDOH

(1' 7+$1.<28)25<2857+28*+7)8/5(63216(6

Page 2

307

Appendix J: Week 8 Survey (Main Study)

308

TL467 TUES AM: Week 8 Responses DUE Nov. 15

,QZKLFKVHFWLRQRI7/,QWURGXFWLRQWR&KLOGUHQ V/LWHUDWXUHDUH\RXHQUROOHG" 0RQGD\DIWHUQRRQVLQ&ROXPEXV 7XHVGD\PRUQLQJVLQ&ROXPEXV 7XHVGD\HYHQLQJLQ0DQVILHOG

3OHDVHSURYLGH\RXU/DVW1DPHIROORZHGE\\RXU)LUVW1DPH ODVWILUVW

7KLVILUVWVHWRITXHVWLRQVUHJDUGWKHSLFWXUHERRN,10<)$0,/

:DVWKHUHDQ\WKLQJWKDWVXUSULVHG\RXDERXW&DUPHQ/RPDV*DU]D·VGHSLFWLRQ WH[WXDORUYLVXDO RIOLIHLQ.LQJVYLOOH7H[DVIURPWKHODWHVWKURXJKWKHV",IVR ZKDW"

:RXOG\RXXVH,10<)$0,/

Page 1

309

TL467 TUES AM: Week 8 Responses DUE Nov. 15 ,I\RXZHUHWRXVH,10<)$0,/

3OHDVHH[SODLQ\RXUUDWLRQDOH

7KHQH[WVHWRITXHVWLRQVDUHDERXWWKHSLFWXUHERRN)5,(1'6)5207+(27+(56,'(E\*ORULD$Q]DOGXD $87+25 6127( IURQWSDJHV ,JUHZXSLQ6RXWK7H[DVFORVHWRWKH5LR*UDQGHULYHUZKLFKLVWKH0H[LFDQ86ERUGHU:KHQ,ZDVD\RXQJJLUO,VDZPDQ\ZRPHQDQGFKLOGUHQ ZKRKDGFURVVHGWRWKLVVLGHWRJHWZRUNEHFDXVHWKHUHZDVQRQHLQ0H[LFR0DQ\RIWKHPJRWZHWZKLOHFURVVLQJWKHULYHUVRVRPHSHRSOHRQWKLV VLGHZKRGLGQ¶WOLNHWKHPFDOOHGWKHP³ZHWEDFNV´RU³PRMDGRV´ 7KLVLVWKHVWRU\RI3ULHWLWDDEUDYH\RXQJ0H[LFDQ$PHULFDQJLUODQGKHUQHZIULHQG-RDTXtQD0H[LFDQER\IURPWKHRWKHUVLGHRIWKHULYHU± *ORULD$Q]DOGXD 32675HDGLQJ4XHVWLRQV ,QDSDUDJUDSKRUWZRGHVFULEH\RXUJHQHUDOUHVSRQVHWR)5,(1'6)5207+(27+(5 6,'(

%RWK,10<)$0,/

Page 2

310

TL467 TUES AM: Week 8 Responses DUE Nov. 15 :RXOG\RXXVH)5,(1'6)5207+(27+(56,'(LQDFODVVURRP":K\RUZK\QRW" 3OHDVHEHVSHFLILF

$:KDWGR\RXQRWLFHDERXWWKHSDLQWLQJVDQGDUWLIDFWVLQWKHKHUEZRPDQ V EHGURRP" %,I\RXZHUHWRXVHWKLVERRNZLWK\RXUIXWXUHVWXGHQWVKRZFRPIRUWDEOHZRXOG\RXIHHO LQGLVFXVVLQJWKHUHOLJLRXVVLJQLILFDQFHRIVRPHRIWKHSDLQWLQJVDQGDUWLIDFWVLQWKHKHUE ZRPDQ·VEHGURRP"3OHDVHH[SODLQ\RXUUDWLRQDOH 9HU\81&RPIRUWDEOH 6RPHZKDW81&RPIRUWDEOH 6RPHZKDW&RPIRUWDEOH 9HU\&RPIRUWDEOH

3OHDVHUHVSRQGWRTXHVWLRQV$ %DQGH[SODLQ\RXUUDWLRQDOH

7KHQH[WVHWRITXHVWLRQVDUHDERXWWKHSLFWXUHERRN$%8(/,72($76:,7++,6),1*(56 ,QDSDUDJUDSKRUWZRGHVFULEH\RXUJHQHUDOUHVSRQVHWR$%8(/,72($76:,7++,6 ),1*(56

:RXOG\RXXVHWKLVERRNLQDFODVVURRP":K\RUZK\QRW"3OHDVHEHVSHFLILF

Page 3

311

TL467 TUES AM: Week 8 Responses DUE Nov. 15 ,I\RXZHUHWRXVH$%8(/,72($76:,7++,6),1*(56ZLWK\RXUIXWXUHVWXGHQWV KRZOLNHO\ZRXOG\RXLQLWLDWHDGLVFXVVLRQDERXWWKHPHDQLQJRIWKHFDQGOHVDQGVWDWXHVLQ $EXHOLWR·VKRXVH"6HHSDJHVDQGRIWKHSGIYHUVLRQRIWKHVWRU\IRUYLVXDODQG WH[WXDOUHIHUHQFHVWRWKHFDQGOHVDQGVWDWXHV3OHDVHH[SODLQ\RXUUDWLRQDOH 9HU\81/LNHO\ 6RPHZKDW81/LNHO\ 6RPHZKDW/LNHO\ 9HU\/LNHO\

3OHDVHH[SODLQ\RXUUDWLRQDOH

7+$1.<28)25<2855(63216(6 6((<282178(6'$<129(0%(5

Page 4

312

Appendix K: Post-Reading Survey

Applying A Critical Reading Lens

Name: ______

Name of Book: ______

Questions to ask prior to reading:

1. What is my relationship to the culture begin depicted in the story?

2. What is my background knowledge? Is it adequate to critically read the text?

Reflection questions to ask after reading critically:

1. What did I learn or notice from my critical reading of the book?

2. What kind of connections did I make in reading critically (text to self; text to text; text to world)?

313

Appendix L: Meta-Knowledge and Content Knowledge Figure

314

Appendix M: Grade Level Analysis for Research Question Three

“Would you use this book (In My Family, Friends from the Other Side, or Abuelito Eats with His Fingers) in your future classroom?

Grade Level Responses

Survey findings show that PTs who would like to become primary grade teachers are more willing to use “In My Family” than the other two books – 81% would use “In

My Family” compared to 67% for “Friends from the Other Side” and 76% for Abuelito

Eats with his Fingers. “In My Family” was not the preferred choice among the other groups of PTs. Seventy six percent of the prospective elementary school teachers would use the book in comparison to 88% who would use “Abuelito Eats with his Fingers.”

“Abuelito Eats with his Fingers” was approved for classroom use by 71% of prospective junior high teachers (higher than the other two books).

With respect to conditions, primary grade teachers attached the largest number of conditions to “Friends from the Other Side” (24% of all respondents who said that they would like to teach primary grades). The number was four times higher than among the elementary school teachers (6%) and almost two times than among junior high (13%).

Elementary and junior high teachers attached more conditions to “In My Family” than to the other two books.

315

82$9:$;7<5.:$

)*+,-*.## /01,123-*.## 452+6*#7+87##

(!!"# !"#$ '(#$ '!"# ()#$ &!"#

%!"# *"#$ "!#$ "'#$ $!"# "%#$ (#$ &#$ !"# +,-./$-01$ +,-./$2,3$-01$ 4,2/56,27.$

FIGURE 19: Respondents’ willingness to use “In My Family” in their future classroom (per preferred teaching grade level).

;<512/0$=<,>$3:1$?3:1<$@5/1$

()*+,)-## ./0+012,)-## 341*5)#6*76##

'!"# "!#$ !"#$

&!"# %'#$

%!"# &'#$ &)#$ $!"# )*#$ )*#$ (#$ (#$ %#$ !#$ %#$

!"# +,-./$-01$ +,-./$2,3$-01$ 4,2/56,27.$ 859:3$-01$

FIGURE 20: Respondents’ willingness to use “Friends from the Other Side” in their future classroom (per preferred teaching grade level).

316

9:+/,31*$;51.$<318$=3.$>307/?.$

)*+,-*.## /01,123-*.## 452+6*#7+87##

(!!"# ((#$ !"#$ '!"# !%#$

&!"#

%!"#

%&#$ %!#$ $!"# %'#$ "#$ "#$ (#$ '#$ '#$ '#$ !"# )*+,-$+./$ )*+,-$0*1$+./$ 2*0-34*05,$ 63781$+./$

FIGURE 21: Respondents’ willingness to use “Abuelito Eats with His Fingers” in their future classroom (per preferred teaching grade level)

317

TABLE 42: Most popular arguments for using the books in the future classroom (by respondents’ preferred teaching grade level).

Arguments for using the books Family Friends Abuelito PRIMARY Total 17 Total 14 Total 16 Foster cultural awareness 9 (53%) 6 (43%) 3 (19%) Family life, traditions, relationships, childhood 9 (53%) 0 (0%) 2 (13%) Reinforce acceptance/respect for others 0 (0%) 2 (14%) 5 (31%) Teach appreciation/importance of family 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (25%) Promote moral development: standing-up to 0 (0%) 7 (50%) 0 (0%) bullying/being brave Family Friends Abuelito ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Total 25 Total 25 Total 29 Foster cultural awareness 16 (64%) 3 (12%) 4 (14%) Family life, traditions, relationships, childhood 12 (48%) 0 (0%) 4 (14%) Reinforce acceptance/respect for others 2 (8%) 9 (36%) 9 (31%) Teach appreciation/importance of family 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 9 (31%) Promote moral development: standing-up to 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 0 (0%) bullying/being brave Family Friends Abuelito JUNIOR HIGH Total 15 Total 13 Total 17 Foster cultural awareness 11 (73%) 2 (15%) 5 (29%) Family life, traditions, relationships, childhood 7 (47%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) Reinforce acceptance/respect for others 0 (0%) 4 (31%) 6 (35%) Teach appreciation/importance of family 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (12%) Promote moral development: standing-up to 0 (0%) 5 (38%) 0 (0%) bullying/being brave

Survey findings indicate that all three groups of respondents (primary grades, elementary school and junior high) associate “In My Family” with fostering cultural awareness. With resect to “Friends from the Other Side”, half of the prospective primary grade teachers and nearly 40% of junior high teachers would use it to promote moral development: standing-up to bullying and being brave (only one respondent from the elementary school would use it for this purpose). All three groups thought that “Abuelito

318

Eats with His Fingers” could be used to reinforce acceptance/respect for others (primary grades and elementary school - 31%, junior high – 35%).

319

Appendix N: Code List1

Accommodate students’ religious belief

Book has/promotes a good message/lesson

Book is suitable for ESL/Mexican/Spanish-speaking readers

Comments about Abuelito

Comments about how Tina's relationship with Abuelito evolves with time

Comments about Tina's negative feelings towards Abuelito

Comments about Tina's relationship with Abuelito

Communication/language

Comparing yourself to others

Condition: Context of cultural studies (Mexican)

1 Although the majority of codes were applied across the three books, some are specific to certain books or questions. The codes in this Appendix were applied to the following questions: a) general response (applicable to In My Family, Friends from the Other Side, Abuelito Eats with his Fingers); b) rationale for using/not using the book in the future classroom (“Would you use the book in your future classroom? Why or why not?”) (applicable to In My Family, Friends from the Other Side, Abuelito Eats with his Fingers); c) rationale for discussing/not discussing religious aspects of books (In My Family: “How likely would you discuss the religious significance of the water tank painting “The Miracle”? Please explain your rationale. Friends from the Other Side: How comfortable would you feel in discussing religious significance of some of the paintings and artifacts in the herb woman’s bedroom? Please explain your rationale. Abuelito Eats with his Fingers: How likely would you initiate a discussion about the meaning of the candles and statues in Abuelito’s house? Please explain your rationale).

320

Condition: Context of multiple religions

Condition: Context of social sciences: history/cultural studies

Condition: Context of story/character(s)/setting

Condition: Context of studying pareidolia

Condition: Factual/objective presentation of religion

Condition: Grade level

Condition: If I did more research on the subject

Condition: If required or supportive of curr/content standards

Condition: No proselytizing: teach about religion only

Condition: Parent/school/community approval

Condition: Student population (ESL/Spanish speakers/Mexican)

Condition: Student questions/comments

Condition: Surface level information

Consistent with teacher's beliefs/notion of faith

Cultivate friendship with people who are different

Discussing religion makes me uncomfortable/confused

Dislike the style/format/content of book

Elders are source of knowledge/should be respected

Empathize with characters' struggles in story

Encourage religious awareness

Healer/Herb Woman

La Llorona

321

Exposure to your culture

Family life, traditions, relationships, childhood: general

Family life, traditions, relationships, childhood: Mexican-American

Family life, traditions, relationships, childhood: Mexican/Hispanic/Latino

Family/community beliefs/traditions are irrational

Foster cultural awareness: general

Foster cultural awareness: Mexican-American

Foster cultural awareness: Mexican/Hispanic/Latino

Friends help/support each other

Friendship

Generations

Hardship/struggle in life: general

Hardship/struggle in life: Mexican

Hardship/struggle in life: Mexican immigrant

Help and/or treat people who are different/in need with kindness

I do not have enough background knowledge (about religious significance)

I would not discuss religion

I would not discuss religions that contradict my beliefs

Immigrants are like Jews/Slaves/Japanese

Immigration: Alternative perspective

Immigration: Border patrol

Immigration: Causes

322

Immigration: General

Immigration: Historical issue

Immigration: Mexican

Immigration: Negative social discourse

Immigration: Undocumented/illegal

It is important to acknowledge religious significance

Lack of accurate knowledge should not inhibit discussion

Like the style/format/content of book

Little/no religion permitted in public schools

Mexican/Hispanic/Latino culture/traditions

Mexicans and Mexican Americans are expected to support each other

No curriculum/standards connections

No personal connection

Religion does not belong in school

Non-traditional medicine/treatment (earache)

Not exciting

Not risky

Not specified

Other reasons

Other/different culture/traditions

Outside the scope of what I would like to teach

Overcoming challenges

323

Overcoming generation gaps

Parents teach religion

Personal connection: family life

Personal connection: feelings/experiences

Personal connection: grandparents

Personal connection: religion

Personal connection: traditions/holidays

Questionable content: La Llorona

Questionable content: racial slurs

Questionable content: unlawful character behavior

Reinforce acceptance/respect for others

Relatable for the reader: family life

Relatable for the reader: feelings/experiences

Relatable for the reader: grandparents

Relatable for the reader: traditions/holidays

Relatable/interesting for the reader

Religion has a place in the curriculum

Religion/religious artifacts: part of culture

Religious content (visual/textual) is not important to the story

Candles are less controversial

Catholicism is a major U.S. religion

Religion is not exclusive to culture

324

Respect students' beliefs

Respondent's interpretation does not reflect religious significance

Reveal racism/discrimination

Risky/controversial topic (immigration)

Risky/controversial topic (religion)

Students might not relate/be interested in story

Students should know about national/regional issues

Teach appreciation/importance of family

Teach Spanish language

Topic difficult to discuss (religion)

Topic is not for kids (immigration)

Topic is not for kids (religious significance)

Unfamiliar beliefs are not important to address

I don't share same beliefs and don't want to diminish other culture

Observe separation of Church and State

Parent/community disapproval

Student reaction

Yes curriculum/standards connections

325