6903 - RTE 02-22, Final Submission

Teacher Understanding
Teacher Understanding of Student Understanding: Revising the Gap between Teacher Conceptions and Students Ways with Literature
Fred L. Hamel University of Puget Sound
University of Puget Sound School of Education 1500 orth !arner Tacoma" !# $%&1' ()5*+ %,$-**%& home *&0) orth )5th Street Tacoma" !# $%&0'-5%0% ()5*+ ,'1-%)51 email. fhamel/u0s.edu
#1stract This article e2amines three English teachers3 conce0tions of their students3 literary understandings. T4o 5uestions guide the study. 1+ Ho4 do English teachers conce0tuali6e the act of reading in relation to students3 literary understanding7 )+ Ho4 might attention to artifacts of students3 literature reading su00ort teacher understanding of student understanding7 Teachers in this study held either a 1asic s8ills 0ers0ective or a meta-cognitive vie4 of reading. 9egardless of 0ers0ective" each conce0tuali6ed reading in generali6ed terms detached from the concerns of literature as a disci0line. The teachers e20ressed difficulty connecting and negotiating concern for student reading 4ith concern for student literary understanding. :om0licating this issue" the teachers3 o4n 4ays of reading familiar 0ieces of literature 4ere 0ro1lematic resources for understanding students3 understandings. E20erienced 4ays of reading literature 0layed an im0ortant role in directing their attention a4ay from learner com0etencies and to4ard content concerns.
;ntroduction Each day" #ndre4" Ellen" and :aroline" mem1ers of the same English de0artment" 4or8
carefully 4ith scores of students<organi6ing lessons" reading together" develo0ing 0ro=ects" discussing" o1serving and assessing student 4or8. Each 1rings a love of literature to the classroom" is a s8illed reader of te2ts" and is committed to enriching students3 transactions 4ith literature. Ho4ever" for all three teachers" understanding student thin8ing a1out literature can 1e frustrating 4or8. ;n se0arate intervie4s" as8ed a1out ho4 students res0ond to literature" each teacher 0auses thoughtfully. >;f they3re assigned to read it"? #ndre4" a veteran teacher" says of a ty0ical classroom te2t" >; thin8 it 4or8s in a different 4ay @than 4hen ; readA. They 4ould read through it B and do it as an assignment.? Ellen" a second year teacher" smiles and sha8es her head. They could read<they could read anything" 1ut they could get to the 1ottom of the 0age and they have no idea 4hat they =ust read. . . . They could go through a 4hole 0iece 4ith 50 4ords in it that they didn3t 8no4 and not thin8 t4ice a1out getting to the end" 4aiting for someone to tell them 4hat it meant. :aroline" a co-de0artment chair" struggles to inter0ret 4hat students mean 4hen they 4rite a1out literature. Loo8ing at a student 0a0er" she says. !hat3s she thin8ing7 ;s she =ust saying that7 ; can3t tell. ; have trou1le reading her mind there. #nd may1e ; shouldn3t try to read 8ids3 minds 1ecause 4ho 8no4s 4hat they3re thin8ing. # mi2 of e2as0eration" humor" and insight 0ervades the comments" comments that reflect 1oth uni5ue 0ro2imity to student thin8ing and the sheer elusiveness of the tas8 of understanding such thin8ing in school settings. Cetermining ho4 students thin8" 4hat they 1ring to te2ts" 4hy they en=oy or resist a reading<each of these re0resents the com0licated 4or8 of 8no4ing ho4 and 4hat students learn in a literature classroom. For #ndre4" Ellen and :aroline" e20erience in classrooms" their day-to-day 4or8 4ith students" has not made such understanding easy to
&
identify" to su00ort" or to dra4 u0on for teaching. Dathematics educators have 4restled 4ith this 0ro1lem for over a decade. Studies in math education have suggested that teacher understanding of student thin8ing 4ithin a su1=ect area is crucial for student learning (:ar0enter" Fennema" Peterson" E :arey" 1$%%F Fran8e" :ar0enter" Fennema" #nsell" E Gehrend" 1$$%F Fennema" Fran8e" :ar0enter" E :arey" 1$$*F Peterson" Fennema" E :ar0enter" 1$$1+. #ccording to this research" student learning in schools relies heavily on a 0articular 8ind of teacher 8no4ledge<s0ecifically a teacherHs a1ility to conce0tuali6e student thin8ing 0roductively" to recogni6e the inci0ient strategies" a00roaches and 0re-conce0tions students may 1ring to disci0linary tas8s and conte2ts" and to develo0 instruction accordingly. Such understanding 1y teachers of student understanding" ho4ever" has received scant attention in the English education community. !hile the research 1ase around students3 a00roaches to literature and 4riting" 4ithin and 1eyond school settings" has gro4n" studies of ho4 teachers conce0tuali6e student understanding have 1een rare. This study 0rovides an account. Using 5ualitative case study analysis" ; e2amine the 4ays in 4hich three English teachers understand their students3 res0onses to literature. T4o 0articular issues are the focus of this 0a0er. a+ ho4 English teachers conce0tuali6e the act of reading in relation to literary understandingF 1+ ho4 artifacts of students3 literature reading might su00ort teachers3 understanding of student understanding. :once0tual Frame4or8 Understanding understanding The elusive nature of understanding student understanding reflects a com0le2 0hiloso0hical and inter0retive 0ro1lem. !hat does it mean to understand understanding<that is" a student3s understanding of literature" or a teacher3s understanding of students<4hen one3s o4n
understanding is im0licated in the 0rocess7 Ho4 can teachers understand student res0onse" or researchers understand teacher understanding of such res0onse" in light of the multi0le 0ers0ectives teachers and students 1ring and in light of researchers3 o4n limited frames of reference7 For Iadamer (1$$'+" )0th century social science has generally dra4n u0on norms of scientific rationality to resolve such 5uestions. This tradition constructs o1=ectivity through systematic s8e0ticism and controlled e20erimentation" methods that attem0t to reduce or eliminate 0re=udice and false assum0tion in the o1server. Dany researchers in reading education" for e2am0le" design studies to learn a1out 4hat really ha00ens 4hen students read" and then re0ort the results to teachers" 4ho are then e20ected to correct their 1iases in relation to the ne4 8no4ledge. For Iadamer" ho4ever" understanding is not a1out eliminating 0re=udice. Jur 1iases are not something 4e overcome. ;n IadamerHs 4ords" Kthe 0re=udices of the individual" far more than his =udgments" constitute the historical reality of his 1eingK (00.),'-),,+. Human 8no4ing and understanding are radically 1ound to finite 0oints of vie4" or hori6ons" and 8no4ledge e2ists al4ays 4ithin a hermeneutic circle" that is" a circle of inter0retation rather than o1=ectivity. Jur constant tas8 in relation to any other" for Iadamer" is to K1ring for4ardK or highlight our o4n 0re=udices" to recogni6e ho4 such fore-conce0tions sha0e our 8no4ing" and to allo4 them to 1e challenged and revised 1y the other. ;n the event of understanding" then" 0re=udices are not reduced or eliminated 1ut are 1rought for4ard and given a 0lace 4ithin a larger hori6on. ;n IadamerHs 4ords. K!or8ing out @oneHsA fore-0ro=ection" 4hich is constantly revised in terms of 4hat emerges as @oneA 0enetrates into the meaning" is understanding 4hat is thereK (0.)',+. That is" o1=ectivity only occurs as 4e reali6e that our o4n 0re=udices" 4hich 0ersist" are inade5uate" that something else is there" something not constructed 1y us. Iadamer sees in this event a Kfusion of hori6onsK (0.*0'+. Understanding does not emerge from 4ithin one 0ure hori6on or
'
from sim0ly es0ousing the 0ers0ective of the e20ert. 9ather" understanding is generated in the in1et4een s0aces 4here hori6ons meet" 4here other-ness is recogni6ed" and 4here 0re=udices are revised. From a teacher3s 0oint of vie4" understanding student understanding cannot 1e conceived as learning or 0erceiving student thin8ing in itself (as if 4e could ga6e directly u0on it a0art from our o4n adult 1iases+" or as ado0ting the e20ert3s conce0tion of student res0onse. #gain" for Iadamer" understanding never occurs this 4ay. #ll understanding of students necessarily 0resu00oses a teacherHs o4n hori6on. 9ather than o1=ectifying student understanding as a thing in itself" in 0articular as something researchers alone can identify" Iadamer 4ould highlight and encourage the inter0lay 1et4een teacher" student" and e20ert 0ers0ectives. Studying teacher understanding of student understanding" the 0rimary construct for this study" is less a matter of o1=ectifying or testing teachers3 0artial 8no4ledge in relation to the research 1ase on student understanding" although attention to this research 1ase is clearly necessary. To understand understanding involves" instead" richer interaction 4ith teachers3 starting 0oints in thin8ing a1out students and attention to 4ays in 4hich teachers can identify their o4n hori6ons in relation to other 0ossi1le hori6ons. ;n addition" understanding student understanding im0lies concrete circumstances" that is" 0articular teacher 0ers0ectives in relation to 0articular students and te2ts. Lno4ledge of student understanding cannot occur in terms of ty0ical students" generically understood" 1ut is al4ays integrated 4ith situated conte2ts and circumstances. Legal inter0retation" Iadamer argues" 0rovide one a00ro0riate model for this 8ind of grounded learning. ;n la4" the meaning of a la4 never e2ists in the a1stract 1ut is discovered 0recisely in its 0ractical a00lication to a s0ecific case. Similarly" it is in the a00lication of teacher thin8ing to 0articular cases and conte2ts of student thin8ing that understanding of teacher and student thin8ing arises. 9eading and Literary Understanding
#n ongoing tradition in English education argues for close integration of reading and disci0linary thin8ing (#00le1ee" 1$,%" #00le1ee" 1$$'F Earthman" 1$$)F Langer" 1$$5F Purves E 9i00ere" 1$'%F 9a1ino4it6" 1$%,F 9osen1latt" 1$*%M1$,'" 1$,%F Scholes" 1$%5" 1$$%F Thomson" 1$%,F !ilhelm" 1$$,+. !ithin this tradition" disci0linary 8no4ledge is re0resented in terms of 0rocesses rather than 0roducts. Literature study" in other 4ords" 1est involves a00renticing students to 4ays of interacting 4ith te2ts" rather than to the already-finished conclusions of adult discourse. Practitioners are encouraged to turn to4ard the act of reading and to identify and scaffold for students te2tual strategies and 0rocesses central to literary engagement and thin8ing (Scholes" 1$%5+" 4hether such 0rocesses focus on evo8ing e20erience (Langer" 1$$5F 9osen1latt" 1$*%" 1$,%F !ilhelm" 1$$,F !ilhelm" Edmiston" E Geane" 1$$%+ or on res0onding to the distinct characteristics of literary discourses (Hamel E Smith" 1$$%F 9a1ino4it6"1$%,F 9a1ino4it6 E Smith" 1$$%F Smith" 1$%$+. ;ndeed" e20ertMnovice studies sho4 that generic reading strategies may have limited value as readers encounter nuanced disci0linary tas8s. For e2am0le" Pes8in (1$$%+ found that mature readers of 0oetry focus on 4ord0lay and structure as cues for their res0onse" rather than trying to com0rehend the 0lain sense of a 0assage (e2am0le of mature reader comment. >This sounds li8e a riddle. ;t sounds li8e a nursery rhyme. ;t3s a 0assage 4hich is more 0leased 4ith B creating a mystery than it is 4ith ma8ing itself clearly understood? 0.)51+. ovice readers" on the other
hand" ty0ically dra4 on very general reading strategies" such as re-reading" 4hen 0assages are hard to follo4. Earthman (1$$)+ 0rovides a similar analysis from a reader-res0onse 0ers0ective" focusing on the distinct 4ays e20erienced readers fill ga0s in literary te2ts. Such 0ers0ectives argue for careful attention to students3 4ays of reading as they are constituted 4ithin disci0linary domains and a challenge to 4hat !ine1urg ()001+ calls >disci0linary homogeni6ation? 4hen it comes to su00orting student thin8ing. >#lthough 4e carve the school day into se0arate 0eriods"?
!ine1urg 4rites" >ho0ing there1y to teach students to 1e multi-lingual in various 4ays of 8no4ing" 4e too often end u0 teaching a single tongue? (0.,$+. The single tongue" in this case" is generali6ed thin8ing strategies" com0rehension s8ills" or study s8ills for a00roaching academic dilemmas that may re5uire nuanced disci0linary 4ays of 8no4ing. Ces0ite arguments li8e !ine1urg3s" 4e 8no4 little a1out ho4 teachers in fact conceive of the interconnection 1et4een reading and disci0linary understanding. Secondary teachers" 0resuma1ly" develo0 informal conce0tions of this relationshi0" 1ased on e20erience" listening to students read aloud" school conte2t" conce0tions of su1=ect matter" and on assumed notions of literacy (cf. Iee" 1$$'+. :ontent area reading course" 4or8sho0s" and research" 4hich ac5uaint teachers 4ith reading theory and strategies 4ithin and across disci0lines" are common (#lvermann E Phel0s" )00)F Cornan" Dat6 9osen" E !ilson" 1$$,F Pearson" 9oehler" Cole" E Cuffy 1$$)F Nacca E Nacca" )00)+" 1ut their effect and relevance for secondary teachers remain an intriguing 5uestion. The increasing attention to reading at the secondary level overall suggests that teachers3 a4areness of the reading demands students e20erience is gro4ing. Gut 4e 8no4 little a1out ho4 teachers frame this 0ro1lem in relation to their o4n su1=ect matter e20ertise and teaching 0ractice. Learning a1out Student Understanding. #rtifact and E20erience Ho4 might English teachers come to learn a1out their students3 4ays readings of literature" or 0ut differently" a1out their students as readers of literature7 9ecent research in teacher learning" in a 1road sense" focuses on the im0ortance of using classroom artifacts of student thin8ing. Transforming teacher thin8ing" the argument goes" re5uires attention to diverse sam0les of student 4or8" grounding teacher learning in 0articular instances and conte2ts for thin8ing. E2amining student tal8" 4riting" and art4or8" in this sense" can focus teachers on the nuances of student thin8ing and res0onse and can dis0el false dichotomies 1et4een formal and
informal 4ays of 8no4ing. Gall and :ohen (1$$$+ challenge the culture of 0rofessional develo0ment in teaching 1y insisting that documents of 0ractice and artifacts of student thin8ing 1e the source and touchstone for all teacher learning. E2am0les of generative teacher learning 4ith artifacts have 1een most noticea1le in mathematics education (Grin8er" 1$$%F :ar0enter" Fennema" E Fran8e" 1$$'F :ar0enter" et al" 1$%%F Fran8e" et al" 1$$%F Fennema" et al" 1$$*F Hie1ert" :ar0enter" Fennema" Fuson" Human" Durray" Jlivier" E !earne" 1$$5F Peterson" et al" 1$$1+. Oet" 4or8 of this 8ind in the area of literature education remains rare (Irossman" )001F Hamel" )000+. The need for such research is suggested 1y 9a1ino4it6 (1$$%+ 4ho has e20lored distinctions 1et4een students3 first readings of literature and 4hat he calls >reading against memory.? 9eading against memory re0resents 4hat teachers do to 0lan for instruction after having read a te2t multi0le times. 9eading for class" in his 4ords" amounts ty0ically to >re-reading? for teachers" or reading in light of one3s alreadydevelo0ed e20ectations" 1eliefs and conclusions a1out a te2t. 9a1ino4it6 argues that" 4hile teachers surely attem0t to imagine students3 needs 4ith te2ts" the conclusions of earlier readings inevita1ly 1ecome the landmar8s that frame 0lans for teaching and e20ectations for student understanding. Unfortunately" such landmar8s are 0oor guides for understanding students. 9emem1ered readings ty0ically involve 4hat 9a1ino4it6 calls readings of >coherence? (0. $5+" a reading that assumes or see8s the overall design of a 4or8. First readings" on the other hand" are ty0ically >configurational? (0. $&+" that is" characteri6ed 1y tentativeness and confusion for readers" a >0er0le2ing 4al8? (0. 100+ for readers. 9a1ino4it6 4rites. The initial act of reading inevita1ly involves e20ectations that aren3t met" 0redictions that don3t 4or8 out" details that are missed" 0atterns that aren3t com0leted... That sense of dislocation... is among the fundamental e20eriences
10
the first time through a te2t" es0ecially a com0le2 one (0.100+. For 9a1ino4it6" literature teachers generally do not distinguish their e20erienced reading 0ractices from readings of configuration. They too often mean >reading against memory? in using the term >reading? for teaching" a 0ro1lematic starting 0oint for understanding student understanding. ;n short" access to artifacts can 1e 1oth 0roductive and 0ro1lematic for teacher learning. #ccess to student thin8ing may ac5uaint teachers 4ith unfamiliar details of student res0onse" 1ut the frames of reference teachers 1ring to learning artifacts may serve to confirm 4hat teachers already 8no4 a1out te2ts and already assume a1out students. ;f e20erienced reading 0rocesses 0rovide teachers 4ith 0o4erful resources for identifying and su00orting students3 readings (Shoen1ach" Ireenleaf" :6i8o" E Hur4it6" 1$$$+" 4e must continue to e2amine the nature of this resource and the 4ays in 4hich teachers dra4 u0on it to frame assum0tions a1out student understanding. Dethod # 5ualitative case study a00roach 1est suited my goals for this study. ; 4anted to e2amine my research 5uestions through thic8 accounts of 0ractitioner reflection. The 0o4er of the 5ualitative design is its richer descri0tion of the nuances and circumstances of 0articular cases" trading off a larger sam0le for more attention to the Kecological circumstances of actionK (Lin E Eric8son" 1$%'" 0.101+ and to ho4 8no4ledge might 1e re0resented from the actorsH 0oint of vie4. Using a small num1er of cases" ; felt" 4ould allo4 for a finer-grained loo8 at teacher thin8ing and 0romote 0romote theory-1uilding around issues of understanding student understanding.
11
Setting This study 4as com0leted 4ith three volunteer teacherM0artici0ants from the same de0artment in a mid-si6ed secondary school. Jf the three high schools in its district" Sha4 High School (a 0seudonym+ has the strongest academic re0utation. The school has ran8ed nationally for its num1ers of students that ta8e #dvanced Placement e2aminations. Sha4 serves a 0o0ulation it descri1es as economically and culturally diverse" and students 4ho attend come from a mi2 of rural" 4or8ing class" military" and 0rofessional families. The ethnic com0osition of the school is mostly homogenous" 0rimarily of !estern Euro0ean descent (,)P+" 4ith smaller 0ercentages of #sian (1)P+" #frican #merican (&P+" Pacific ;slander (5P+ and His0anic (&P+ students. The English Ce0artment at Sha4 offers a college 0re0 curriculum. #ll 10th grade students ta8e a general so0homore English course" 4hich revolves around gaining familiarity 4ith various te2tual genres. short story" novel" 0oemMdrama" research. #t the =unior and senior levels" students ta8e electives that focus on 4riting" literature" or communication. E2am0les of electives include S0eech and Jral ;nter0retation" #merican Literature" :reative !riting" Sha8es0eare" Euro0ean Literature" :ollege !riting and 9esearch" and Dodern ovel. ;n addition" at the time of this study" the de0artment had a class called Gasic English" for so0homore students 4ho had e2hi1ited difficulty 4ith reading and 4riting tas8s in 0ast school4or8. Partici0ants ; identified secondary English teachers 4ho 4ere teaching literature currently or had taught literature recently. ; loo8ed 4ithin a single English de0artment for reasons of convenience" a choice that allo4ed me to 4or8 4ith teachers 4ho e20erienced similar sorts of school and de0artmental 0ressures. ; focused on three teachers to identify 0otential variations and" through cross-case com0arison" shar0en and strengthen findings. The 0artici0ants themselves re0resent a convenience sam0le of sorts" a collection of teachers 4ho 4ere 4illing and availa1le. They 4ere
1)
selected volunteers" individuals either recommended 1y an administrator andMor a00roached se0arately 1y me. ; held no 0articular criteria for the 0artici0ant sam0le" other than those mentioned a1ove" although those recommended 4ere done so 1ecause of the high 5uality of their teaching. ;n the end" the three teachers selected" #ndre4 Gevington" :aroline Caly" and Ellen Fra6ier (all 0seudonyms+" re0resent a range of e20erience from ) years to )' years teaching English. The 0artici0ants in this study also include three students 4ho com0leted thin8-aloud 0rotocols for their teachers to e2amine" although the students themselves 4ere not a direct focus of investigation. Each teacher and ; agreed u0on one student from a current class to com0lete a thin8-aloud. ;n selecting students" 4e discussed students 4e thought might 1e interesting to learn a1out 1ased on their 0artici0ation in class. For e2am0le" 4e discussed a student 4ho 4as lethargic in class 1ut al4ays carried around his o4n inde0endent novelsF 4e discussed students 4ho seemed very a1le 1ut reservedF 4e discussed a student 4ho had struggled 4ith English classes in the 0ast 1ut seemed to 1e doing 1etter. Cata :ollection The study em0loyed t4o 0rimary data collection strategies. individual intervie4s and classroom o1servation. The intervie4s generated the heart of my findings. The 0ur0ose of o1servations 4as to corro1orate and clarify the conce0tions of student thin8ing that emerged in the intervie4s and to loo8 for relationshi0s 1et4een teacher a00roaches to student thin8ing and classroom 0ractice. ;n addition" ; as8ed each teacher to com0lete a 1rief survey focusing on their su1=ect matter 1ac8grounds and e20erience teaching literature. #s 0art of the survey" teachers ran8ed their o4n content 8no4ledge and their e20erience teaching literature from 1 to '" 4ith 1 as lo4 and ' as high on each scale. ; conducted four semi-structured intervie4s 4ith each teacher. The first intervie4
1*
focused on 1ac8ground information as 4ell as general 1eliefs and 0ractices in teaching literature. ;n this intervie4" ; also 4anted to gain insight into each teacherHs general 0erce0tions of students and ho4 students a00roach and learn literature. The second intervie4 focused on teachers3 o4n thin8ing 0rocesses 4ith literature. ;n this intervie4" ; as8ed each teacher to read and thin8 aloudi a1out t4o different te2ts" a te2t recently taught and an unfamiliar te2t. #fter the unfamiliar te2t" ; as8ed teachers to 0redict ho4 students might res0ond and to descri1e ho4 they 4ould a00roach instruction 4ith the same te2t. ;n using the thin8-aloud 0rocess" ; ho0ed to 1etter understand ho4 teachers3 o4n reading 0ractices 4ith literature sha0e their conce0tions of student understanding. The third intervie4 focused on classroom artifacts of student learning. ; as8ed each teacher to 1ring concrete artifacts that 4ould sho4 student understandings of literature from their classes. #rtifacts could include =ournal 4ritings" 0a0ers" dra4ings" tests" audiota0e" videota0e" or any other item 1y 4hich teachers could evaluate student res0onses to literature. ; as8ed teachers to 1ring in artifacts that they 4ere genuinely 0u66led 1y" or that they 4anted to thin8 a1out further" as 4ell as artifacts they 1elieved reflect a distinction 1et4een understanding and misunderstanding 4ith literature. Curing the intervie4" ; as8ed teachers to evaluate students3 0erformances" to e20lain 4hy they selected these artifacts" to discuss 4hy they assessed these artifacts as they did" and to discuss 4hat 8ind of teaching su00ort these students might need. The fourth intervie4 involved the student thin8-alouds mentioned in the >Partici0ants? section a1ove. ; first invited each teacher3s selected student to read from 1oth familiar and unfamiliar 0ieces of literature" in each case the same te2ts their o4n teachers had read in the second (thin8-aloud+ intervie4. ; videota0ed each thin8-aloud and later revie4ed each videota0e" selecting lengthy sections to 0resent to the teachers. ; 1rought the videota0e selections to the fourth intervie4 and used these as te2t for discussion. ; did not 0re0are s0ecific 5uestions to
1&
direct teacher res0onses. ;nstead" ; gave each teacher a N:9 remote and had each 0ause the ta0e 4hen she or he had a thought or reaction. Jccasionally ; 0aused the ta0e myself to as8 a1out a teacher3s reaction to a 0articular segment. #fter vie4ing the videota0e" ; as8ed each teacher to ma8e =udgments a1out this studentHs literary thin8ing. Cata #nalysis Each intervie4 audiota0e 4as transcri1ed ver1atim and then summari6ed for 5uic8 reference. ;n summari6ing" ; reduced every t4o to five 0ages of transcri0t data to 1rief 0aragra0hs and 4rote notes to ca0ture my first im0ressions. #n e2am0le of this summary a00roach is 0rovided in #00endi2 #. Transcri0ts 4ere then coded to search out general 0atterns and themes. The coding categories 4ere grounded in a research strand that has focused on teacher 8no4ledge and 8no4ledge gro4th. ;n 0articular" my categories gre4 from studies that have em0hasi6ed the nature of 0edagogical content 8no4ledge (Irossman" 1$$0F Shulman" 1$%'" 1$%,+ and s0ecific dimensions of that 8no4ledge. Such studies have highlighted the im0ortance of teacher understanding of student disci0linary understandings" 1ut they have not loo8ed closely at this dimension. ;n coding" ; 1egan 4ith a 1road set of 8no4ledge categories related to my research 5uestions and then loo8ed for 0atterns among teachers3 comments. Jne set of codes" for e2am0le" focused on teachers3 e2isting conce0tions of student literary understanding. ;n reading the transcri0ts" various su1-categories emerged related to this focus" such as teachers3 1eliefs a1out 4hat motivates students 4ith literature" resources and strategies students 1ring to literature" and difficulties students have 4ith literary te2ts. # second set of codes focused on 0otential sources for teachers3 understanding of student understanding. These included codes for 0ersonal reading strategies" historyMe20erience 4ith literature" de0artmental conte2t" teacher education" and teachers3 theoretical 1eliefs a1out literature. # third set of codes focused on instructional
15
0ractices related to teachers3 assum0tions a1out students. :odes included curricular structure" classroom activities" classroom discourse" and evaluation 0ractices. ; 8e0t the codes 1road not 4anting to over-determine or fragment the data. ; did 4ant to grou0 generally-related chun8s of data in a 4ay that 4ould 0romote theory 1uilding. Ta1le 1 0rovides a summary of these codes 4ith e2am0les of coded tal8. ;n this study ; concentrate es0ecially on data from the starred (Q+ su1-categories in the first t4o columns.
Table 1: Initial Coding Categories Conceptions of student understanding of literature code abbreviation ! CSU" #UC;E :E (#UC+ im0lied audience for literature curriculumF 4ho teacher aims literature curriculum for and 4hy some of the literature we do is not that we dont have that literature, you know, as a good thing for them to learn, but that when were dealing with a general run of students, were really aiming like at the u er middle rather than at the broadest s e!trum of students in how we e" e!t them to !ome through it#$ %&ndrew' QDJT;N#T;J (DJT+ motivating forces for students reading literatureF conce0tions of 4hy students li8e or disli8e literatureF teacher e20ectations for motivation (any of them are )ust more interested in, *+h my god, I )ust got u and here Im in !lass and I have to stay awake and listen to this stuff, so its hard to motivate them#$%Caroline' Q9ESJU9:ES (9ES+ resources and strategies 8ids 1ring to literatureF ty0ical and aty0ical strengths 8ids 1ring to reading literature I think that the little bit of oetry that I taught last year, they were some of them were very good at ,uestioningI mean they seemed to be able to i!k out the lines that must have some meaning#$ %-llen'
#nowledge sources for teacher understanding of student literary understanding abbr ! #S" Q9E#C; I (9P+ teacher reading 0ractices and historyMe20erience as a student +h, well I asso!iate my e" erien!es with what is in the oem, but thisas a !hild he really liked wells and um s with bu!kets and windlasses who !an walk ast a dit!h or water when youre a little kid without throwing a ro!k in it or stom ing in it, you know.$ %Caroline' TE#:HE9 ECU:#T;J (TE+ formal teacher education e20erienceF learning through teacher ed courses" inservice" or field4or8 /asi!ally, the rofessors hiloso hy was that literature is something you need to do in the !lassroom# 0ou need to read it with them1 you need to talk about it regularly# 0ou !ant )ust hand them the book and tell them to go read it and test them at the end of it# 0ou have to work them through it#$ %&ndrew' TE#:H; I ERPE9;E :E (TR+ ongoing teaching e20erience" including student o1servation" assessment of learning artifacts" interactions 4ith colleagues and thats my )ob as a tea!her to know that a story is hard to get into# 2o then Ill have us, the whole !lass, start the story and get
$nstructional practices abbr ! $%" :U99;:UL#9 ST9U:TU9E (:U99+ ho4 teacher structures literature curriculum for students The first semester I taught Classi!al 3iterature so we did mythology# 2o all that a lied to the Illiad, and then !hronologi!ally we went to the +dyssey, and then all these stories were re eated in the +resteia lays, so it was !onstant building#$ %-llen' #:T;N;T;ES (#:T+ ty0ical classroom activities" 4hat students are as8ed to do in class +kay# They get the book# I talk about 4it5gerald the first day# I talk about his ba!kground, biogra hi!al things &nd then I usually read a !ou le ages at the start of the book to, first of all to oint out setting, and to get beyond what, in that book is a !ou le ages of introdu!tory material that may !onfuse them &nd then indi!ate where theyre going, or where the book is going and what they !an e" e!t, say for the remainder of the !ha ter, be!ause I dont read all66the whole thing on this day# Then theyre left to read#$ %&ndrew' C;S:JU9SE (C;S:+ nature of classroom discourse" 8inds of 5uestions as8ed" monologic vs.
1'
QC;FF;:ULT;ES (C;FF+ 4hat 8ids find 0u66ling or difficult in reading literatureF ty0ical and aty0ical misconce0tions or 0ro1lems they think they have to !ome u with the answer that Im going to !ome u with as far as how to inter ret what theyre reading, and I think thats what makes it boring, that they dont feel they !an read it and en)oy it#$ %-llen' SJ:;#L F#:TJ9S (SJ:+ 1eliefs a1out social conte2ts and ho4 they influence student understanding of literature 7e have done dis!ussion on these stories# &nd I think a lot of what she says is refle!tive of some of the things we talked about# 2o Im not sure how mu!h of this thinking is would have a eared the same way without the dis!ussion#$ %&ndrew'
into it, and then they !an go from there# /ut thats my )ob to see that 8diffi!ulty with a!!ess9, and e" erien!e tells me that#$ %Caroline' Q:J :EPT;J JF L;TE9#9O U CE9ST# C; I (:LU+ teacher 1eliefs a1out 4hat literature is" 0ur0oses for teaching literature" and 4hat it means to understand literary te2ts I would like them to think of literature as a vital inter retation of lifes ossibilities and that literature offers answers and ,uestions about what it means to be human 2o to get literature I think at some level is to get life#$ %&ndrew'
dialogic 2o what I usually do is eli!it from the !lass what are their thoughts, and, as they are giving me things, to organi5e what theyre doing on the board, and then if I have something else in mind that I want to do, I ull it out of that and sli it in#$ %Caroline' EN#LU#T;J (EN#L+ evaluationMassessment tools" concrete methods for assessing student understanding of literature I know that a lot of kids dont write very well or arent !omfortable writing, but they !an show their understanding in different ways# 2o I tried to find another outlet ### so I !hose a ro)e!t and what they had to do was !hoose a assage in the book and somehow inter ret it visually#$ %-llen'
#s 0art of my analysis for each teacher case" ; re-read the transcri0t 0assages categori6ed 1y codes and noted recurrent themes 4ithin categories as 4ell as data that conflicted 4ith those themes. ; used field notes from class o1servations" 4hich ; had summari6ed se0arately" to reinforce or contradict these readings. #s ; analy6ed each case" ; develo0ed su1-categories under initial coding categories. Under the coding category of >resources and strategies students 1ring to literature? (code :SU-9ES+ for e2am0le" ; created a list of teacher conce0tions for each case. Ta1le ) 0rovides an e2am0le of such su1-categories 4ith sam0les of coded te2t.
Table :: -"am le of 2ub6!oding !ategories for C2;6<-2 % <esour!es student bring to their reading of literature'
Tea!her: Caroline
Sub& category Coded Te(t
'(perience) 'veryday #nowledge >They 4ould understand that. B they3ve all 1een children and all ; 4ould have to say is remem1er 4hen you 4ere a 8id"
School #nowledge They also are re5uired to ta8e !orld Literature as so0homores. Dany of them can use their history then to
*bility Level Those who hav e exp eri e n c e and this inher e n t quality to und e r s t a n d
Language+ Reading S,ills They would se e this bec a u s e they are sen sitive to words.
Ways of Reading Well, he and I hav e differe n t philoso p hi e s , I think, abou t wher e were
1,
and you 4ent out and ... you did #G:" and they start tal8ing a1out it right a4ay. Their memories. #nd then it3s al4ays fun to =ust let them go free and then to ta8e 4hat they have said and 0ull it 1ac8 into the 0oem.?
1ring that to the literature. #lthough these are =uniors and seniors" ; am al4ays ha00y to remind them that 4hat they have ta8en as so0homores is a00lica1le to 4hat they are ta8ing as =uniors and seniors" so ; li8e to 1ring that connection and that these classes are not in isolation.?
poetry will get it, and theyll help lead the oth ers.
!o" e of the " are deb a t e r s and they und e r s t a n d how words can be use d to sway and "ak e peopl e feel. #$nd I think they would resp o n d to the langu a g e and the i"a g e r y...
co"in g fro", and thats true of eve n peopl e who hav e exp eri e n c e as I do, so" e of the " want to inter% ect their own interpr e t a ti o n.
#fter coding" ; 4rote an analytic memo 0roviding informational 1ac8ground on each teacher and descri1ing 0atterns and themes ; sa4 in each teacher3s thin8ing a1out student understanding. The ne2t stage of analysis involved cross-case com0arisons of data" searching across the memos and returning to the transcri0ts to identify shared 0atterns" themes" and discre0ancies. ; 4rote a summary memo listing the 8ey themes ; 0erceived across cases. ; then returned to the intervie4 summaries" as 4ell as to the transcri0ts themselves" to search for confirming and disconfirming data in relation to the cross-case themes. This 0rocess 4as essential in ca0turing shades of difference in the transcri0ts and hel0ed guard against over-sim0lified notions of teacher thin8ing.
1%
Dethodological :oncerns # fe4 limitations of this study must 1e highlighted. First" since ; relied on a single site" the teacher thin8ing ; re0ort here 4ill reflect local" school-s0ecific influences. Dany studies suggest the significant role teaching conte2t can 0lay in teacher decision-ma8ing (Irossman" Thom0son"E Cingus"1$$$F Louis" Dar8s" E Lruse" 1$$'F DcLaughlin 1$$*F e4ell E Holt" 1$$,+. This study" then" may reflect teacher thin8ing es0ecially uni5ue to Sha4 High School or to the English de0artment at this school" factors that may 1est 1e illuminated 1y em0loying cases from different settings. # second issue involves the general 1revity of my classroom o1servations. ; o1served each teacher fe4er than five times over the course of three months. Hilloc8s (1$$$+ suggests that classroom o1servations are often essential to understanding su1tleties of teacher thin8ing. !hile the data collection for this study centered on the intervie4s" the a1sence of longer-term o1servations may have 8e0t less o1vious as0ects of teacher thin8ing from vie4. ;ndeed" 4hat ; learned a1out each teacher from o1serving even a handful of instructional 0eriods 4as enormous. Dore classroom data 4ould have su00orted even richer cases. Findings ;n this section" ; first 0rovide 1rief 0rofiles of each 0artici0ant 1ased on information gathered in the first intervie4 and survey. #fter the 0rofiles" ; focus on a+ the teachers3 attem0ts to come to terms 4ith students3 readings of literary te2ts and 1+ their efforts to learn more" using videota0e artifacts" a1out their students3 4ays 4ith literature. Partici0ant Profiles #ndre4 #ndre4 Gevington" an English teacher for over t4elve years" has en=oyed reading literature for as long as he can remem1er. He ran8ed his content 8no4ledge in literature & out of ' on the survey. #ndre4 said he read consistently as a young 0erson and that >reading 4as never
1$
a 0ro1lem for me.? Ces0ite some 0ersonal am1ivalence to4ard school as an adolescent" #ndre4 dre4 sustenance from literature" 4hich 0layed an im0ortant role as he co0ed 4ith the stresses of teenage life. >; used to read a lot even in high school"? he told me" >to the 0oint of reading under the covers 4ith a flashlight" you 8no4. Gut it 4as" it 4as a 8ind of esca0e from other things" it 4as a 4ay to 1e a4ay" you 8no4<not there. Literature" you 8no4" ;3ve en=oyed most of my life.? #ndre4 found an academic calling in college and 1ecame a literature ma=or. His teaching load at Sha4 included general English" creative 4riting" and #merican literature classes. #ndre4 e20ressed initial uncertainty to4ard the focus of my intervie4s. ; as8ed" for e2am0le" in our first intervie4" ho4 he 4ent a1out determining 4hat his students 8ne4 a1out literature" and 4hat they needed to learn. He said. ; 0ro1a1ly (slight 0ause+" ; 0ro1a1ly don3t. ; mean ; determine 4hat they 8no4 a1out the units that 4e are dealing 4ith" 1ut ; don3t thin8 ; ever go into 4hat they 8no4 a1out literature. Oou 8no4" 4hat level they are at B ; don3t have any standard 1eginning that lets me 8no4 4here they are" and ;3m not sure that it 4ould do me much good if ; did. !hat they need to 8no4 ; e20ect to go over 4ith them. #ndre4 indicated that 4hat students need to 8no4 is 0rovided for in the given curriculum rather than in any investigation of students3 res0onses. ;t 4as not evident to him" for instance" ho4 one 4ould go a1out investigating student literary thin8ing or ho4 such an investigation might su00ort his teaching. He 4as" ho4ever" 5uite interested in learning ho4 to motivate students to engage 4ith literature. :aroline :aroline Caly" a co-de0artment chair in English" had )' years of e20erience teaching literature at the time of our intervie4s. She re0orted having ta8en over forty courses related to
)0
literature and ran8ed herself ' out of ' in terms of content 8no4ledge. :aroline re0orted ta8ing university classes during summers >to 0ursue more 4or8 in literature"? as she 0ut it. She received her Dasters degree in English from a ma=or state university" had taught 0art-time at a local community college" and 4as a reci0ient of a ational Endo4ment for the Humanities Scholarshi0. :aroline 1ecame an English Literature ma=or during her undergraduate years" focusing es0ecially on 4hat she identified as >Geginnings to 1''0"? and her interests as a literature teacher are still sha0ed 1y this concentration. She has taught English Lit for )5 years and referred to herself as a >medievalist? at heart. Suniors and seniors in her classes read classics such as Cante3s ;nferno" The :anter1ury Tales" Dalory3s Le Dorte d3#rthur" and Con Tui2ote. :aroline 1rought a distinct o0timism to4ard students and student learning. Dany of her general comments reflected the fact that she 8e0t faith 4ith students" even if they initially ta8e on resistant attitudes to4ard literature. She s0o8e" for e2am0le" of a so0homore she 4as teaching for the second year in a ro4. He 4as in my so0homore drama 0oetry class" and he<0oetry is =ust 8ind of li8e" 0hhtt" over his head. He3s" as a so0homore" he 4as really adamant against reading the 0oetry. Gy the time 4e got through" he thought it 4as 8ind of cool (chuc8le+ and he has really gro4n u0" so it is fun to 4atch him. :aroline e20ressed the en=oyment she receives as young students are dra4n to4ard literature. She noted that des0ite some s5uirrelly 1ehavior" so0homores tend to sur0rise her in 0ositive 4ays. >That3s 4hy teaching is fun" as ; said" (laughter+ 8ids never cease to ama6e you. ;t can go the other 4ay" too" 1ut not as often as the 0ositive 4ay.? Ellen Ellen Fra6ier" a second year English teacher" 4as the youngest teacher in the study. She ran8ed her e20erience teaching literature ) out of ' on the initial survey" although she noted she
)1
had an >e2tensive 1ac8ground in reading" analy6ing and inter0reting literature.? Ellen e20lained that her sense of 0ur0ose in teaching literature" namely" to give students more voice and o4nershi0 4ith te2ts" had 1een s0ar8ed 1y her o4n secondary school e20erience" 4here lac8 of such o4nershi0 4as the norm. #s a university student" she e20erienced a 6eal for literary inter0retation" as the teaching focused on a seminar format" giving students a voice and not 1eing 1ound 1y the teacher3s 0ers0ective. Gefore coming to Sha4" she com0leted her G.#. 4ith an em0hasis in 4riting" then 4or8ed for a fe4 years 1efore com0leting a teacher certification 0rogram in English. ;n her t4o years at Sha4" Ellen had taught 0rimarily 4riting courses. She taught t4o sections of literature the year 0rior to our intervie4s 1ut said she felt far more confident 4ith the 4riting curriculum. ;n assessing ho4 students learn 4ith literature" Ellen said she 0rimarily used 4riting. She felt she had fe4 other valid 4ays to evaluate students3 individual understandings" and she 4as a1le to rely on her o4n 1ac8ground in 4riting for such assessments. So any4ay" 4e do a lot of 4riting and ; haven3t figured out ho4 to teach it 4ithout ma8ing 8ids" ma8ing them 4rite a lot" and ; don3t have<; have a 1etter understanding of their understanding 4hen they3re a1le to 4rite a1out it" 1ecause ; can3t really tell from the classroom discussions 1ecause they may understand it 1ut =ust 1e too timid to s0ea8. Jr they may not understand it 1ut they have develo0ed a 4ay of res0onding that ma8es them a00ear to understand. So it nearly 8illed me come grading" 1ut they did a lot of 4riting. Ellen3s em0hasis on 4riting revealed her commitment to student understanding 4ith literature and a general dissatisfaction 4ith common multi0le choice assessments. :oming to Terms 4ith Students3 9eading of Literature
))
For #ndre4" :aroline and Ellen" reading a1ility<that is" com0rehension s8ills and 8no4ledge of voca1ulary<4ere common concerns as they considered their students3 res0onses to literature. This em0hasis sur0rised me" given my o4n assum0tion that English teachers 4ould focus on content-oriented" disci0linary issues. Oet" each teacher 0artitioned literature students" in some fashion" into readers and nonreaders" and each highlighted 0oor reading s8ills as an o1stacle to literary understanding. Ta1le * illustrates ho4 such res0onses emerged 4ithin my data.
Table =: Coding sub6!ategories for C2;6>I44 %2tudents >iffi!ulties with 3iterature' Co-ple(ity . /otivation Reading s,ills . $nnate abilities *ccess vocabulary 1re2uency of Codes '(a-ples of Coded 3ata )5 coded e2cer0ts >!hen ; assign ?atsby and some students read the first cha0ter<@they sayA U; 4onder 4hat ha00ened.3? (#ndre4+
>The 1eginning of :yrano is so confusing" there are so many characters and it =um0s from this grou0 of 0eo0le tal8ing to this grou0B?
15 coded e2cer0ts ># lot of students" 4hen they get to the 0oint 4here they3re a senior and they3ve done this for all these years" they =ust don3t 4ant any more. ;t3s very difficult.? (Ellen+ >They 4ill come in and say Uit3s 1oring"3 1ut once 4e get into it" they dro0 that. ; thin8 it3s =ust cool to say that this is 1oring B that3s a 0osture they need to ta8e.? (:aroline+
&) coded e2cer0ts >Some 8ids" and this is ; thin8 ty0ical of most 8ids" 4ill not sto0 and loo8 u0 a 4ord" so they could go through a 4hole 0iece 4ith 50 4ords in it that they didn3t 8no4 and not thin8 t4ice a1out getting to the end" 4aiting for someone to tell them 4hat it meant.? (Ellen+ >Band ; thin8 for many of them it3s =ust difficult to read" to 8ee0 focused.? (#ndre4+
10 coded e2cer0ts >She is a V she3s not a great thin8er to 1egin 4ith. This is 0ro1a1ly as intellectual a 0a0er as ;3ve seen from her.? (#ndre4+
>There are so many reasons 4hy 8ids don3t read. There may 1e something 0hysically 4rong in the child. He is dysle2ic. Day1e his eyes 4eren3t chec8ed 4hen he 4as youngB.? (:aroline+
$nterpretation0 Reflecting on Significance 1, coded e2cer0ts ># lot of students had the same 8ind of a00roach that ; didB Nery fe4 of them 4ould trust themselves enough or feel comforta1le enough 4ith themselves to inter0ret it in some 4ay and then e20ose themselves.? (Ellen+ >The really difficult thing ; found 4ith the ma=ority of students is for them to understand the tie of humanity through all of time" 4hich ;3ve al4ays found interesting that they don3t see that immediately.? (:aroline+
(:aroline+
The teachers together felt that a gro4ing num1er of students need significant hel0 4ith 4hat might 1e called 1asic reading. ;dentifying 4ho might 0rovide such su00ort" and ho4" ho4ever"
)*
4ere more difficult 5uestions. ;ndeed" if concern for reading s8ill remained consistent across cases" less clear 4as ho4 these teachers understood reading in the conte2t of the disci0line< ho4 1asic reading is related to the literature curriculum in general and 4hat it means to 1e a s8illed reader of literature. ;n 4hat follo4s" ; focus on the teachers3 vie4 of reading as a foundation for literary understanding and on the theories of reading that emerged as each teacher discussed students3 res0onses to literary te2ts. 9eading as Foundation #ndre4" :aroline and Ellen all 1elieved that reading involves a generic set of s8ills that lays the ground4or8 for disci0linary thin8ing. Each teacher recogni6ed reading as critical to the study of literatureF yet" each also 0laced the act of reading as conce0tually 0rior to the actual su1=ect matter concerns of English. Each" for e2am0le" detached reading issues from her or his o4n literature curriculum. Such sentiments arose es0ecially as 4e discussed the difficulties students had 4ith more advanced te2ts. Their tal8 a1out student reading" in each case" emerged as tal8 a1out something other than literature" most often a1out the need for s8ill remediation. #ndre4. 9eading as on-literary. #ndre43s comments often relegated reading to lesser academic status and characteri6ed reading as a set of technical s8ills. !hen ; as8ed #ndre4 4hat ma8es literature difficult for his students" he re0lied. The ones 4ho are having 0ro1lems usually it3s<the statement is >;t3s 1oring.?B 1ut it turns out >!ell" ; can3t understand it.? o4 4e have no reading 0rogram at
the high school level and this is something" in fact" the de0artment has 1een trying to 4or8 on for years to get. !e literally have 0eo0le in the high school reading at a fifth grade level. Oou give them Iats1y" they3re not going to 1e a1le to understand much of it. This is one 0ro1lem" =ust s8ill level. #ndre4 admitted that his o4n a1ility to deal 4ith lo4er readers 4as limited" and he felt he had
)&
neither e20ertise nor significant res0onsi1ility for student learning 4hen it came to reading level. Some students >usually don3t get through the first cha0ter? 4ith te2ts li8e The Ireat Iats1y" he said. >;t may not 1e their fault. . .1ut 4e have no reading 0rogram. !e have very limited 1asic English" and ; don3t 8no4 ho4 to 1ring the lo4er end 0articularly through the literature to the level that ; a00reciate it.? #ndre4 also e20lained that" as a teacher" he often had difficulty distinguishing reading 0ro1lems from lac8 of motivation. >Sometimes ; thin8 they really don3t understand it"? he said. >They read a sentence that doesn3t<@theyA don3t 8no4 the connections that are 1eing made 1et4een this sentence and the ne2t" and 4hy 4e3re going there. Sometimes ; thin8 it3s =ust an e2cuse for not 0aying attention.? #ndre4 felt more certain" ho4ever" that 4hatever reading issues e2ist are not genuinely literary concerns. He concluded. >The ones 4ho are trying to read and not getting it" ; often feel are having =ust trou1le reading. That it3s not an issue of literature. ;t3s a matter of =ust decoding 4ords and 0utting them in the right order mentally.? #ndre43s technical notion of student reading here re0resents an intriguing contrast to his o4n e20erience 4ith reading as a 0oorly motivated adolescent" his drive to read to >esca0e from other things"? as >a 4ay to 1e a4ay"? for e2am0le.
)5
:aroline. Uncertainty in Sudging 9eaders. :aroline" referring to her o4n English Literature and Euro0ean Literature courses" similarly detached students3 reading issues from the literature curriculum. >Usually 8ids 4ho can3t read"? she e20lained" >4ill not choose those courses 1ecause they 8no4 they3re harder. !e have other courses for 8ids 4ho don3t read 4ell.? Lo4 readers sim0ly may not survive a challenging literature course" :aroline indicated. The teaching of reading" she im0lied further" is not the o1=ective of literature classes. Li8e #ndre4 and Ellen" :aroline e20ressed limited confidence in her a1ility to =udge students and their reading 0rocesses. Ciscussing one student3s 0oorly 4ritten literary essay" :aroline s0eculated. Oea" ; have a feeling she doesn3t read 4ell. !ell" ; don3t 8no4" though. !hen she read out in class . . . she read fine. Gut it 4asn3t long-- . . . o4 4hen she
gets to 0aragra0hs and that sort of thing ; don3t 8no4. #nd ; haven3t loo8ed u0 her reading score<to tell ho4 4ell she reads. !hen ; as8ed :aroline 4hat she e20ected from the reading scores" she said. >com0rehension" reading s0eed" all that you get on those reading tests.? Such comments highlighted a noticea1le difference 1et4een :aroline3s sense of literary e20ertise and her sense of herself as understanding students as readers. The more distanced 0osition she ado0ted around issues of reading matched :aroline3s teaching identity as an academic s0ecialist dra4n to Gritish medieval literature. Ellen. Co Poor 9eaders Gelong7 Ellen3s comments echoed similar divisions 1et4een reading and literature. She e20lained that she had 1een rudely a4a8ened her first year teaching 4hen she discovered her students could not read 4ell. She had assumed that students in high school classes 4ould 1e inde0endent readers. >!ell" first ; assumed that everyone in my class could read" 4hich is not the case. . . . !ell" they could read 1ut not the level of literature that 4e 4ere reading. They could read the 4ords 1ut they couldn3t com0rehend them.? Ciscussing one of her classes" she o1served"
)'
!e =ust had 8ids in there 4ho 1elonged in #P English" 1ut they didn3t 4ant the res0onsi1ility" and ; had 8ids in there 4ho could 1arely read" 1elonged in Gasic @EnglishA" so it 4as very difficult to do a lot 4ith that grou0. Ellen" li8e #ndre4" felt that 0ro1lems in understanding literature correlated 4ith lo4 reading levels" and that differing reading levels created significant 0ro1lems for literature instruction. She" too" suggested that 1etter trac8ing of lo4 readers might ma8e a difference. She also remained uncertain a1out her o4n efforts to monitor and su00ort students as readers. Some students sim0ly gave u0 on reading hard te2ts" she said" and she ended u0 using techni5ues she 4as not sure she even 1elieved in. She descri1ed her efforts. !ell" ; had to give 5ui66es" had to give reading 5ui66es 1ecause they 4ouldn3t read it unless they 8ne4 they 4ere going to 1e res0onsi1le for a 5ui6. Um" voca1ulary 5ui66es" and ; don3t 4hat all else ; did" 1ut ; don3t" you 8no4" ; feel li8e in time ; 4ill develo0 1etter 4ays to do it" 1ut last year ; 4as =ust 8ind of thro4n in there and ; didn3t<; =ust did 4hat ; had 1een taught" and that3s ho4 ; did it. Ellen 4as conflicted a1out such 0ractices" as she re-enacted the methods she had resented in her o4n schooling" including those that served to diminish students3 voice and o4nershi0 4ith te2ts. Theories of 9eading
),
9eading as 9e0roduction. #ndre4 and :aroline. J1serving their students read" #ndre4 and :aroline conceived of reading largely in terms of 4ord-1ased decoding and em0hasi6ed reading as a technical activity<geared to4ard the e2act re0roduction of the te2t on the 0age. The oral reading of strong students" according to #ndre4 and :aroline" tends to 1e fluent and 4ithout significant error. The reading of 4ea8er students" on the other hand" is characteri6ed 1y miscues and inaccurate retellings. #s he listened to t4o students thin8 aloud" for e2am0le" #ndre4 dre4 attention to accurate decoding. He made 1rief o1servations of fluency as he listened to one student read. >She3s misreading occasionally. She3s missing 4ords.? !hen the student finished commenting on a short cha0ter from a novel" #ndre4 o1served. Oeah" there 4as" there 4ere several things she didn3t understand in there. She 0aused on that car" the >Darmon"? 4hich ; certainly didn3t recogni6e 4hen ; ran into it either" 1ut she didn3t seem to 8no4 4hat a >s4itch engine? 4as. She 4ent right over that 4ithout ma8ing the com0arison that this meant it 4as a very large car. She 4ent from >vases? to >vase? on her last 0ronunciation. #fter listening to a second student3s thin8 aloud" he made a com0arison. >First of all" he3s reading 1etter than she did. He seems to<; haven3t seen him miss a 4ord yet.? :aroline" li8e #ndre4" dre4 strong connections 1et4een 4ord recognition and overall reading a1ility. !hen ; as8ed :aroline 4hy young 0eo0le find literature difficult" for e2am0le" she s0eculated" >Day1e they can3t read very 4ell. Their voca1ularies are really shallo4.? J1serving the videota0e of one of her students reading literature" :aroline focused first on voca1ulary and e2act oral decoding. >He doesn3t have a very good voca1ulary" does he7? she said" after her student stum1led on the 4ord >0er0etually.? #fter ; had 0rom0ted" on the video" the student to >articulate his thin8ing"? :aroline sto00ed the ta0e. >;3m 4ondering if he 8no4s 4hat the meaning of the 4ord Uarticulate3 is. Gecause if he doesn3t understand Uda00led3 and
)%
Uuncongealed"3 then Uarticulate3 4ould 1e may1e difficult for him" too.? The student had mis0ronounced 1oth 4ords in the first 0aragra0h of his reading. Later" after more reading miscues" :aroline commented again. >The voca1ulary is getting in his 4ay . . . Oeah" ; thin8 the voca1ulary is clouding his 0erce0tion of 4hat3s going on. #nd it is tough voca1ulary. #nd 0articularly as ; sus0ect that he3s a 8id 4ho doesn3t read a lot.? Jverall" #ndre4 and :aroline 4ere less sure" 1eyond im0roving voca1ulary" a1out ho4 to su00ort students 4ith reading. #ndre4 had seldom actually o1served students3 reading 0rocesses" and since reading had never 1een a 0ro1lem for him" he found it difficult to relate to the various decoding 0ro1lems students might have. :aroline maintained her o0timism a1out 0oor readers in her lit classes" ho0ing that they 4ould come around eventually" through a com1ination of interesting te2ts" teacher 8no4ledge of such te2ts" discussion and attention to 1asics li8e voca1ulary. 9eading as Donitoring. Ellen. Ellen3s em0hasis on reading differed from that of her colleagues. The 0rimary distinction she made 4as 1et4een those students 4ho >read for understanding"? as she 0ut it" and those 4ho >read to get done.? Students 4ho read for understanding are a4are 4hen they are confused and 4ill re-read until they understand. Students 4ho read 0oorly" Ellen e20lained" ty0ically decode 4ithout attending to thin8ing 0rocesses. They often mista8e decoding 4ith the more com0le2 0rocesses of reading itself. There are some 8ids 4ho 4ill =ust read through the 4hole thing and not understand 4hat they3re reading" 1ut they3ll come to class and say" >; read it.? #nd you3ll say" >!ell" 4hat did you thin8 a1out this7? >Jh" ; didn3t really understand that.? >!hy don3t you read it again7? ;t doesn3t ever occur to them to read something t4ice 1ecause they don3t get it the first time.
)$
For Ellen" students 4ho read to >get done? may decode efficiently" 1ut they usually don3t understand the 4or8 involved in ma8ing sense from te2ts. Students often >notice things @1utA they don3t see the connections" if it re5uires more 4or8 than =ust 4hat3s on the surface"? Ellen e20lained. Successful readers" on the other hand" 0ut forth individual effort 4ith te2ts. #s she o1served one student read the o0ening cha0ter of Lord of the Flies" Ellen admired the student3s tendency to 0u66le over grammatically com0le2 sentences and difficult voca1ulary. ;3m =ust thin8ing that she3s reading for understanding 1ecause . . . this is not ma8ing sense to her. . . . She3s 4or8ing very hard to figure out ho4 it ma8es sense. Um" and ; noticed that 1efore in the first cou0le of sentences. She sto00ed" 4hen she stum1led on a 4ord" to ma8e sure she had the right 4ord. . . This student" Ellen noted" 4as >very a4are? of her confusion and 1ecame >1othered? 4hen language didn3t fit or ma8e sense" and she 0aused on lines or 4ords that 4ere unclear to her. The student sometimes didn3t resolve such difficulties immediately" 1ut the fact that the student 4as >4or8ing very hard? 4ith a te2t<re-reading" 0u66ling" visuali6ing<distinguished her as an effective reader for Ellen. Ellen felt less confident" ho4ever" e20laining 4hy most students fail to monitor in this 4ay" and 4hat she as a teacher might do a1out it. For e2am0le" Ellen re0orted that 4hen students 4eren3t follo4ing one te2t successfully in class" she slo4ed do4n to focus on the 1asic 0lot and character names" teaching goals Ellen characteri6ed as >very sim0le.? Ellen felt uncomforta1le 4ith some of the 0ractices she resorted to. So it3s hard" 1ecause ; see myself sometimes forced to do certain things li8e B ; made them 4eed @voca1ularyA out and ; had to give them a 5ui6 1ecause they 4ouldn3t study if ; didn3t 5ui6 them" and ; had to have grades for them. So" ;
*0
don3t really li8e that. ; li8ed the college courses that ; have 4here you 4rote 0a0ers and you had an essay final. Ellen felt es0ecially challenged 1y this dilemma" e20laining that her o4n attem0ts to hel0 students read successfully ended u0 0roducing negativity in some students and reinforced for them the artificiality of school literature" something Ellen ho0ed to avoid in her teaching. ;n addition" it 0ulled Ellen a4ay from the 8inds of 4riting assessments she felt 4ere most valua1le for student understanding. Learning a1out Students3 !ays 4ith Literature Ho4 might English teachers learn more a1out their students3 readings of literature7 !hat sources or activities su00ort gro4th in teacher thin8ing a1out student literary understanding7 ;n the section that follo4s" ; e20lore the teachers3 res0onses to my efforts to stimulate thin8ing a1out student understanding. Using data 1elo4" ; sho4 1oth 0roductive and 0ro1lematic dimensions of their engagement 4ith videota0es of student literary thin8ing. First" ; focus on :aroline and #ndre4 as each teacher 1egan to re-orient their conce0tions of students as readers. e2t" ; focus on Ellen and :aroline to sho4 ho4 their teacher o1servations 4ere informed 1y e20ert reading 0ractices<0ractices that steered 0edagogic thin8ing a4ay from the details of student understanding.ii 9e-orienting :once0tions. :aroline and #ndre4 J1serving students reading aloud" :aroline and #ndre4 confirmed for themselves that teaching voca1ulary is im0ortant and that 4ea8 readers often have difficulty decoding te2ts e2actly as they are 4ritten. Ho4ever" :aroline and #ndre4 also found 0henomena they hadn3t 0redicted" reading 0ractices that didn3t easily fit a reading-as-re0roduction theory. Jne issue 4hich caused reconsideration for :aroline 4as one student3s continued >e2tem0ori6ing"? as she 0ut it" or his tendency to read 4ords differently than they 4ere 4ritten on the 0age.
*1
:aroline. :aroline critici6ed this 0ractice initially" yet as she listened to the student3s ver1ali6ed thoughts and reactions to a narrative te2t" she found that he 4as >getting? a great deal of 4hat 4as there. Ces0ite several reading miscues and stated confusion at the start of one 0assage" for instance" the student sto00ed soon after to summari6e 4hat he had read. The student concluded. The scene 4as done. #ll that 4as left 4as the 1ody 1ags. There 4as nothing left for him there. Every1ody @hasA already 1een tal8ed to" 1ut it didn3t matter 1ecause it 4as<tonight3s ne4s 4as over and it 4as going to 1e for tomorro4. . . . ;3m starting to 0iece it together. Sto00ing the ta0e herself" :aroline commented on this summary" suggesting some dissonance 1et4een her o4n 0icture of reading and the student3s o1served 0ractice. Oeah" he3s getting the general gist of this even though (laughter+ he doesn3t 8no4 4hat it3s all a1out. !ell" that he<; find that ama6ing that he3s having a terri1le time getting through this. He3s not interested in it" 1ut it3s still saying the core of 4hat the story is a1out" 1ut he3s not intrigued enough to 4ant to go on. #s she 4or8ed through the conflict in her 0erce0tions" :aroline shifted her vie4. She asserted that" rather than 1eing a matter of 0oor s8ills" the student seemed >not interested? or >not intrigued? 4ith the te2t. Later in the videota0e" ho4ever" the student 0ointedly critici6ed the main character3s a00roach to her ne4s-re0orting =o1. ;t says right here she 4as a stic8-and-move artist moving from a @te2tWliving off
theA 0olice scanner and hitting the
scene" getting a fe4 names and a fe4 5uotes"
and a little local color. She3s =ust there for the glamour. She3s not there 1ecause she 4ants to 8no4 a1out the ne4s" and she3s not there 1ecause she 4ants the 0eo0le to 8no4 a1out the ne4s" she3s =ust there 1ecause it3s li8e" 4ell" that3s my
*)
=o1" or ; have to do that. ;3m a re0orter" ; have to get a little 1it. ;t3s unim0ortant to her. ; mean ; 4ould 1e a little 1it more concerned if ; 4as her< 0eo0le had died and there3s 1een an assassination. ; mean ; 4ould 1e a little 1it more concerned" a little more in de0th for the 0eo0le that have =ust died. !ith noticea1le engagement" the student had generali6ed a1out the main character3s ethics" 0rovided evidence" 0laced himself into the character3s role" com0ared his o4n 0otential reaction 4ith hers" and ta8en a 0ersonal stand. :aroline reacted 4ith some sur0rise and ad=usted her sense of the student3s interest level in this te2t. ; am im0ressed that he does understand 0retty much 4hat this is on" and he hits this a1out she is a stic8-and-move artist. He hit that" he li8es that. Jr at least he understands it. ;3m not sure he li8es it 1ut he understands it and so" yeah . . . Even though he thought it 4as a man" you 8no4" still he understood the 1asic characteristics of the character. J1serving her student read" ho4ever" :aroline felt torn in her evaluation. She recogni6ed that he 4as >going for the meaning"? as she 0ut it" rather than using e2act decoding" and that he 4as having success in the 0rocess. Oet she still sus0ected his decoding 0ro1lems 4ould result in distortion of the literature. :aroline ac8no4ledged in the end" ho4ever" that this student3s 4ay of reading might differ from her o4n. ; don3t 8no4 (chuc8le+. #s this follo4-the-rules ty0e of 0erson" ; li8e to read 4hat the translation tells me here 1ecause that3s the 0iece of literature. Gut ; guess ;3m more of a left 1rain 0erson that3s not 5uite that creative. ; 8ind of li8e to stic8 4ith 4hat3s here" and then do my inter0reting from 4hat is there" 1ut . . .; thin8 that that is the 4ay he reads. :aroline3s o1servation of this student3s reading thus 1ecame a moment for 0otential teacher
**
learning. :aroline 1egan to transform her sense of successful reading as e2act re0roduction" and she cast a1out for alternative 4ays to understand the student3s res0onse. ;m0ortantly" :aroline started the 0rocess of fore-grounding her o4n 4ays 4ith te2ts" her o4n assum0tions (>#s this follo4-the-rules 0ersonB? >; guess ;3m more of a left-1rained 0ersonB?+ and 0lacing such assum0tions" even uncomforta1ly" in relation to her student3s 4ay of reading. Her 4ondering left 1oth of us 4ith ne4 5uestions. ;f :aroline is >follo4-the-rules"? then 4hat rules e2ist for literary readings7 #re there alternative 4ays to read and res0ond to literature7 Ho4 im0ortant is e2act decoding in reading literature7 :an a 8id read 0oorly 1ut understand literature 4ell7 #ndre4. # different issue arose for #ndre4" as he listened to one of his student3s reading a 0assage from 9ichard !right3s collection" Uncle Tom3s :hildren. The female student read aloud a descri0tion of a 4oman nursing her child and remar8ed to me" her intervie4er" that it 4as a484ard to read aloud a1out 1reastfeeding in front of a male. ; don3t 8no4" ; =ust<li8e reading it" es0ecially you 1eing a guy and tal8ing a1out a 4oman3s 1reasts. She 4as 1reast feeding the child. ; thin8 that3s odd. 1ut ; mean it3s the literature so you =ust 8ee0 on reading it" 1ut that one ; felt uncomforta1le. #ndre4 res0onded to the videota0e" 4ondering aloud a1out the social conte2t of the reading intervie4 and its effects on his student3s reading. >Her comment at this 0oint is addressed to your 0resence rather than her reading of the story" as ;3m hearing it... so does this change ho4 she is reading in some 4ay7? #ndre4 initially se0arated my >0resence? from the student3s >reading of the story"? although he recogni6ed there 4as some interaction 1et4een the t4o. #ndre4 felt" in fact" that her reaction 4as a fairly common one. >Oou don3t usually tal8 a1out 0rivate 1ody 0arts to relative strangers"? he e20lained. These o1servations raised issues that had not emerged in our earlier tal8 a1out student reading. #ndre4 noted >she3s a4are of this environment around her...as
*&
she3s reading.? His comments" at least momentarily" seemed to focus less on a single individual3s 0rocesses and more on reading as a 0u1lic or social event. !hen 4e tal8ed a1out 4hether my 0resence 4as creating a different 8ind of reading" #ndre4 concluded. >!ell" ; mean it must 1e a different 0rocess since she3s reacting differently than she 4ould if she 4as alone.? Such immediate o1servations raised issues 4ith 0otentially significant conse5uences. ;s a school reading a 0u1lic or a 0rivate event7 Ho4 does social conte2t influence students3 res0onse to te2ts7 !hat 8ind of reader" individual or social" does #ndre4 assume in teaching literature7 Such im0licit 5uestions offered alternative frame4or8s for considering student reading" 1eyond the measurement of literal accuracy. ;n fact" #ndre4 1ecame generally more o0en to learning a1out students3 e20eriences 4ith literature as our intervie4s 0rogressed. #fter tal8ing a1out the 0rocess of thin8ing aloud" for instance" he remar8ed" >J1viously you3re a4are of reading-thin8ing connections that ;3m not" or that ; have 0aid no attention to" and ; su00ose 4hat you3re doing is teaching me thisBso that ; 4ill 1ecome more a4are of it.? E20erienced 9eading and Student Understanding. Ellen and :aroline #ndre4 and :aroline3s reconsiderations suggest that artifacts of student thin8ing can 1e a 0o4erful source for understanding student understanding. ;n 1oth cases" access to artifacts of student understanding su00orted these teachers in re-thin8ing 1asic assum0tions a1out students as readers of literature. Teacher thin8ing" such cases suggest" and as mathematics studies have also suggested" can 1e fle2i1le and res0onsive given access to close-u0 data a1out students. Oet" such fle2i1ility 4as not a characteristic of the 0rocess overall as teachers o1served their student readings. Geliefs a1out student understanding 4ere grounded" as ; 4ill sho4 1elo4" in 0articular 4ays of dra4ing on teachers3 o4n e20erience in reading literature<4ays that 0lace the details of students3 res0onses to te2ts in the 1ac8ground. 9a1ino4it6 (1$$%+ argues that as literature teachers teach te2ts over and again" their 0erce0tions and evaluations of students are
*5
sha0ed 1y remem1ered readings" readings that favors coherence in te2ts" assume the 4hole design of a 0iece" start 4ith esta1lished themes and 0atterns in mind" and so on. Gy contrast" configurational readings reflect the ha0ha6ard 0iecing together that occurs on first readings" as students try to ma8e sense of unfamiliar territory. ;n this sense" teachers3 strategic e20ertise 4ith literature may limit their 0erce0tions of students3 first readings" so that teachers see only students3 lac8 of coherence rather than healthy strategic configurations<a classic deficit stance. Gelo4" ; focus on Ellen and :aroline" the least and most e20erienced teachers res0ectively" using e2cer0ts from their readings in intervie4 t4o. Ellen3s 9eading. Ellen" reading Lord of the Flies" a novel she 8ne4 4ell and had taught the 0revious year" dre4 on 1oth strategies of configuration and coherence as she s0o8e a1out the o0ening 0aragra0hs. For e2am0le" she 4or8ed hard to situate herself in the o0ening scene" visuali6ing as she read. >Smashed into the =ungle"? that gives me an image ;3m going to remem1erB !ords li8e >clam1ering"? ; can see him 8ind of 4or8ing very hard to get some4here. She formed e20ectations a1out 4hat might ha00en ne2t. !hat other 0eo0le they3re going to find. !hat more a1out their 0ast is going to 1e revealed7 !hat a1out the 0ilot7 This attention to configuration reflects Ellen3s need to re-situate herself into the story-4orld to reassem1le the 4orld of the te2t as she reads. ;t may also reflect the fact that readers 4ill notice things" given the scrutiny of the thin8 aloud techni5ue" that they had not noticed in earlier readings. Ellen3s 0redictions (>!hat other 0eo0le @are theyA going to find7 . . . !hat a1out the 0ilot7?+ 4ere es0ecially interesting" in this regard" in that she 8ne4 4hat 4as going to ha00en in the story. Her 0redictions" in other 4ords" reflected a uni5ue act of imagination" trying to imagine
*'
ho4 she 4ould read if this 4ere a first reading. This suggests that teachers" in imagining their students3 first readings" still read against memory<must 4or8 against 4hat they already 8no4. ;ndeed" as she 0roceeded" Ellen 1egan to assume a coherence stance. S0ecifically" she focused attention on a 1inary o00osition she sa4 at 4or8 in the o0ening 0ages (reading aloud is underlined+. He 1ent do4n" removed the thorns carefully" and turned around. He 4as shorter than the fair 1oy and very fat. He came for4ard" searching out safe lodgments for his feet" and then loo8ed u0 through thic8 s0ectacles# See these t4o as o00osites. Jne is thin" one is fat. Jne is taller" one is shorter. They3re referring to<one is referred to as >the fair 1oy"? so o1viously the other one is not fair. #nd he3s 4earing glasses and the other one is not. Here" it is difficult to =udge 4hether Ellen3s reading is a remem1ered one" since her e20erience as an English ma=or may sensiti6e her to such o00ositions even in unfamiliar te2ts. Oet" Ellen 4ent on to e20lain that" reading the cha0ter this time" she had seen something she hadn3t seen 1efore" >evidence of the set u0? of this o00osition for the entire 1oo8. >Jh" =ust the 1ody language 1et4een the t4o"? she said. >!ell" =ust the<ho4 automatically Piggy 4as follo4ing 9al0h. He3s never even 4al8ing 4ith him" He3s al4ays 1ehind him. !anting to 1e acce0ted. !anting to 1e noticed.? Ellen also found a 0layful headstand 1y 9al0h 4orth noting" since >that3s im0ortant for the rest of the story" ho4 that @0layfulnessA changes.? Ellen3s attention to the author3s >set u0? suggests that her s8illful associations" of 1inary o00ositions" for e2am0le" reflect strategic disci0linary thin8ing em1edded 4ithin earlier readings. #s might 1e e20ected" she 4as reading the first cha0ter in light of 4hat she already understood a1out the eventual 0o4er dynamic 1et4een t4o central characters. #s 9a1ino4it6 suggests" such an e20erienced reading is different in 8ind rather than degree from first readings of literature.
*,
:aroline3s 9eading. The most em0hasis on coherence came from :aroline. This may reflect :aroline3s level of e20erience and high content 8no4ledge 4ith the te2t she 4as teaching. ;t may also reflect the fact that :aroline read the final scene of a 0lay she 4as currently teaching" rather than early 0aragra0hs as Ellen had. :reating coherence" in other 4ords" may 1e a stance 4e can es0ecially e20ect e20erienced readers to ta8e as they come to the end of a te2t" although as Langer (1$$5+ 0oints out" this 8ind of stance does not necessarily 4ait u0on other stances to emerge. For her familiar te2t" :aroline read from #ct N of :yrano de Gergerac. The 0assage includes :yrano3s final 4ords" as he stands mortally 4ounded 1efore his friends. ; 0rovide t4o e2cer0ts of :aroline3s reading at length" 4ith her te2t reading underlined @1rac8et sections 4ere not read aloudA. @9o2ane.A Oour life has 1een unha00y 1ecause of meX DeX @:yrano.A o" 9o2ane" 5uite the contrary. Feminine s4eetness 4as un8no4n to
me. Dy mother made it clear that she didn3t find me 0leasant to loo8 at. ; had no sister. Later" ; dreaded the thought of seeing moc8ery in the eyes of a mistress. Than8s to you" ;3ve at least had a 4oman3s friendshi0" a gracious 0resence to soften the harsh loneliness of my life. ;n all the 4hile that ;3m reading :yrano" ;
al4ays have this feeling of the 0oignancy of this s4eet inner soul that is so ugly on the outside" and this is so touching 1ecause his mother didn3t find him 0leasant to loo8 at" and =ust a1out every mother thin8s her 1a1y is 1eautiful. Gut 9o2ane has 1een a1le to fill that void for him... ;n this res0onse" :aroline e20licitly refers to her e20erience 4ith the te2t and 0resuma1ly earlier readings (>;n all the 4hile ;3m reading :yrano" ; al4aysB?+" as she shares her o4n affective res0onse to the 0assage. She em1eds her 0ersonal connection (>=ust a1out every motherB.?+
*%
4ithin an evolved vie4 of :yrano3s character (>this s4eet inner soul?+" one that ta8es into account :yrano3s actions throughout the 0lay rather than in this one 0assage. iii :aroline continues.
*$
!hat3s that you say7 ;t3s useless7 Jf course" 1ut ;3ve never needed ho0e of victory to ma8e me fightX The no1lest 1attles are al4ays fought in vainX Oou there" all of you" 4ho are you7 Oour num1ers seem endless. . . . #h" ; recogni6e you no4. my old enemiesX LiesX Dy greetings to youX The 1ravado he has al4ays had in his life he has to the end" and 0art of this is sho4 for 9o2ane" too" as 4ell as for his o4n 1eingB. ;3m going to stand for myself" ; never needed the ho0e of victory to ma8e me fight. Gattles are fought in vain" li8e the hundred to one. #nd that3s also a 1alance that 9ostand has done here" that the first act is very much li8e the fifth act. They echo each other" the entrances of :yrano.
&0
:aroline3s a00roach reflects a high degree of disci0linary 8no4ledge" such as familiarity 4ith the assum0tions of e4 :ritical theory and 8no4ledge of s0ecific themes and structures for this 0lay. :aroline e20lains ho4 :yrano3s 0ersonality and life history relate to his current 0osture in death<connecting different 0arts of the story together" seeing consistency in :yrano3s actions throughout 0lay. She also continues to ste0 1ac8 from the te2t" o1=ectifying an authorial strategy at 4or8 throughout the 0lay" namely the >1alance? and >echo? from #ct 1 to #ct 5. Less tentative or e20loratory in her res0onses than Ellen or #ndre4" :aroline3s efforts to ma8e sense of the ending e2hi1ited little uncertainty" as if :aroline could dra4 easily u0on a set of 4ell-formed ideas. :aroline did not sto0 and 0u66le over 0otentially confusing 0assages. She did not sto0" for instance" to 4onder a1out :yrano3s strange" delusional conversation 4ith a1stract vices (>my old enemiesX?+. :aroline3s reading sho4ed no second-guessing" either" 4ith res0ect to either literal or sym1olic meanings of the 0lay3s final image" >my 4hite 0lume.? Her reading 4as distinct from Ellen3s in that it 4as so e20licitly a remem1ered reading. :aroline did not attem0t to role-0lay or 0retend a first encounter 4ith this 0art of the 0lay. ;ndeed" :aroline3s reading is thro4n into relief 1y t4o alternative sources of data from our intervie4s" her o4n reading of unfamiliar te2ts and one of her student3s first readings of the :yrano te2t. ;n reading unfamiliar te2ts" :aroline used initial im0ressions" leveraged 0rior 8no4ledge" allo4ed herself to 1e unsure" s0eculated" and raised 5uestions a1out the te2t in 5uestion. 9eading the first 0aragra0h of a e4 Oor8er story she had never seen 1efore" :aroline3s comments focused on her o4n strategies for entering a te2t" the use of 0rior 8no4ledge and 5uestion-as8ing" rather than on conclusions.
&1
#s ;3m reading this" the first thing that 0o00ed into my head 4as co0 scenes" television scenes" la4 and order ty0e of thing. #nd also ;3m 4ondering 4hy she 4as there >too early?.... #nd >Cem0sey county 0olice slant 0ar8ed? made me thin8 that this is not in a city" although it3s a tenement" 4hich that thre4 me to thin8ing" all right" 4here are 4e7 ;3m trying to set myself into time and s0ace4ise. 9eading an unfamiliar Seamus Heaney 0oem" :aroline articulated her o4n uncertainty as she came to the last t4o lines. (reads te2t+ > o4" to 0ry into roots" to finger slime" to stare" 1ig-eyed arcissus" into some s0ring is 1eneath all adult dignity. ; rhyme to see myself" to set the dar8ness echoing.? (comments+ He3s a young man. He3s loo8ing into this s0ring" 4hich suddenly ; don3t 8no4B. This is really 0rimal. #nd arcissus 1ac8 into loo8ing at himself and really into his very 1eing. Gut he3s going 1ac8 to 4hat" ; don3t 8no4. ;s he going 1ac8 to that Sungian >4e all share this? B ; don3t 8no4. Gut it3s >1eneath dignity"? 1ut yet he3s using the 0oem then to 1e the echo and the reflection of himselfBso" is he going into his very essence of his 1eing" is he going into his 0astB7 ; don3t 8no4. :aroline3s first readings of this te2t 4ere dominated 1y s0eculations" attem0ted connections" halts" and uncertainties" something far less evident in :aroline3s reading of :yrano for her class. The 0o4er of :aroline3s reading against memory is also highlighted 4hen com0ared 4ith a student3s first reading of :yrano and in her comments on that reading. ;n the transcri0t e2cer0t 1elo4" :aroline o1serves one of her o4n students reading from the same 0assage that she herself
&)
had read a1ove" in 4hich :yrano is dying 1efore his friends. ;n the 4ee8s 0receding this intervie4" :aroline had taught the 0lay in class. Students had read in class" discussed" and 4atched 0arts of the story" including the ending" on video. Ho4ever" the intervie4ed student informed me" 1efore 4e 1egan his thin8 aloud" that he hadn3t actually read the final section on his o4n. The student3s reading is given 1elo4 @ver1atim reading is underlinedF thin8-comments aloud in 0lain te2tA follo4ed 1y :aroline3s res0onses. . . . 1ut ;3ve needed ho0e of victory to ma8e me fight--(re reads+--1ut ; never needed ho0e from @te2t W >of?A victory to ma8e me fight. J8ay. The no1lest 1attles are al4ays fought in vainX B He<; missed a 4ord. ; missed >never.? ; never ho0ed<; never ho0ed of needing victory<; never need<; never needed ho0e" a ho0e of victory to ma8e me fight. !hich means he doesn3t need<he doesn3t need to 8no4 that he3s going to 4in in order to fight. He3ll fight for any cause. ; lost my 0lace no4. The no1lest of 1attles are al4ays fought in vain. Oou there" after all @te2t W >all of you?A" 4ho are you7 Oour num1ers seem endless. #h" ; recogni6e you no4. my old enemiesX LiesX Dy greetings to youX #nd here<here3s :om0romiseX #nd Pre=udiceX #nd :o4ardiceX !hat3s that7 :ome to terms 4ith you7 ever" neverX #h" there you are" Stu0idityX He3s actually tal8ing a1out himself in all this. He sees himself as a co4ard and stu0idity. ; don3t 8no4 4hether the 0re=udice comes in too. Day1e he3s 0re=udice to 0eo0le that are< The student e2cer0t is interesting for a fe4 reasons. The student monitors his understanding" sto00ing t4ice to retell or summari6e 0arts of the 0assage in his o4n 4ords. He recogni6es" in other 4ords" that the s0eech is not self-evident" that ga0s need to 1e filled" that a >virtual te2t3
&*
must 1e created (Earthman" 1$$)F ;ser" 1$,%+. ;n the last comment" he attem0ts a com0le2 inference V 0iecing together his 8no4ledge of the story 4ith :yrano3s references to a series of 0ersonified vices. The student notes" moreover" something a1out his o4n inter0retation that doesn3t fit 4ell (>; don3t 8no4 4hether the 0re=udice comes inB?+. He goes for4ard from here" satisfied" at least for the time" 4ith his initial res0onse. :aroline made t4o res0onses during this video e2cer0t. First" as the student 4or8ed 4ith the initial sentence" she commented 1riefly a1out his attention to 4ords in reading. >#nd he does that often" s8i0s over 4ords . . . . He sa4 that Unever3 is a very im0ortant 4ord.? Second" at the end of the segment" she made the follo4ing evaluation. Oeah" ; thin8 he3s missing this @laughA. He3s missing that these are the 1attles that :yrano has al4ays fought against" and that3s<in here he3s saying this is him loo8ing at himself" 1ut ; thin8 it3s more 4hat :yrano sees in others. . . . He 4ould never com0romise" he 4ould never 1e 0re=udiced" he 4ould never sho4 fear" and those are things that he has al4ays fought against every4here" and he sees these in <4hich" yeah" on second thought" ; su00ose you could see that in :yrano" 1ut ; don3t thin8 :yrano ever had thoseB :aroline3s disci0linary role" as e20ressed here" is not to identify the student3s 4ays of thin8ing" stance" or strategic a00roach. ;nstead" she addresses mostly ho4 the student3s vie4s differ from an esta1lished reading or 4hether he gets this esta1lished reading. She e20lains" for e2am0le" that he hasn3t sensed the direction (out4ard rather than in4ard+ of :yrano3s remar8s and has failed to connect these 4ords 4ith :yrano3s mostly no1le character throughout the 0lay. #lthough she momentarily re-thin8s the student3s inter0retation" :aroline indicates" in the end" that the student has not yet understood this 0articular 0assage. Her dismissal of the student3s inter0retation is interesting" not 1ecause she isn3t 0ositive a1out this student as a learner (4hich she 4as+" 1ut
&&
1ecause she a00roaches his res0onses in terms of a finished reading. Student understanding of literature" in this case" is measured 1y matching student conclusions 4ith acce0ted or teacherMe20ert conclusions. ;n fact" 4hen this student came to the end of his thin8-aloud and articulated coherent generali6ations a1out the story and its ending" :aroline3s comments 4ere not a1out ho4 the student had arrived at his vie4s" 1ut that she agreed 4ith them. >That is great"? she said" listening to his final comments. >He3s got this lit do4n. He3s got the story do4n. He 8no4s it" you 1et.? Ciscussion 9ecent studies of literature instruction (e.g. ystrand" 1$$,+ have demonstrated the e2tent to 4hich teachers steer student inter0retation to4ard 0re-e2isting meanings. This study hel0s us see 4hy. The transcri0t e2cer0ts a1ove sho4 teachers dra4ing u0on finished" coherent readings as they conce0tuali6e student literary understanding. The data also suggests ho4 difficult and counter-intuitive it may 1e for English teachers to a00roach student thin8ing from learner 0ers0ectives. Teachers li8e #ndre4" :aroline and Ellen not only dra4 u0on their o4n e20erienced readings as measures" 1ut their literacy assum0tions direct attention a4ay from students at a crucial moment V as students formulate their res0onses to te2ts. This study is not an indictment of the disci0linary e20ertise literature teachers 1ring to their teaching. #s Iadamer suggests" understanding student understanding involves not erasing one3s 0roficiency 1ut learning to identify the limits and 1oundaries of the e20ert3s 0ers0ective" to 1egin to sus0end and 0lace e20ertise in relation to learner 0ers0ectives. ;n this res0ect" teachers3 develo0ed 4ays of reading literature are 0o4erful resources" 1ut these resources are not enough. They must 1e em1edded 4ithin a reflective sensitivity to student 0ers0ectives and alternative frames and tools for in5uiring into such 0ers0ectives.iv #ndre4" :aroline and Ellen each sho4 evidence of the former 1ut have far less access to the latter.
&5
#ndre4" :aroline" and Ellen each constructed reading as a neutral 1asis for literary understanding. The notion of reading as foundation reflected an underlying am1ivalence" 4ith reading central to student understanding 1ut 0eri0heral to literature teaching itself. The teachers situated reading ultimately as a se0arate individual and academic tas8 to 1e dealt 4ith outside of" and usually 0rior to" the 4or8 of the literature curriculum itself. Such 1eliefs echo those of the elementary teachers studied 1y !almsley (1$$)+" for 4hom literature 4as >4hat you do after you learn to read" not as something to hel0 you learn to read? (5uoted in Gurroughs" 1$$$+. The im0lication for each teacher" though not stated e20licitly" 4as that ade5uate reading s8ills are a given for literature class" an assum0tion 4hich left teachers little im0etus to e2amine or investigate their students3 0ractices 4ith te2ts. ;nterestingly" given their e20eriences in English classrooms" no teacher actually e20ected every student to 1e a successful reader. 9ather" the teachers3 conce0tion of reading as foundation left them 4ith a su1stantial reading dilemma. They assumed inde0endent readers in theory" 8ne4 they 4ould get 0ro1lem readers in reality" and remained at a distance from readers and reading difficulties 0edagogically. The literature teachers in this study thus live 4ith a fundamental 5uestion a1out their 4or8 unresolved. !hat is the relationshi0 1et4een reading and literary understanding7 #nd 4ho has res0onsi1ility for su00orting students as readers of disci0linary te2ts7 The 0revalence of this 5uestion across cases suggests that English teachers are largely un0re0ared to integrate conce0tions of reading 4ith disci0linary 4ays of 8no4ing. Ellen3s case" in this res0ect" remains instructive 1y itself. Ces0ite Ellen3s conce0tion of student reading as a meta-cognitive 0rocess" she res0onded similarly to her colleagues 4hen it came to the literature curriculum and to instruction. Li8e #ndre4 and :aroline" she did not e20ect to focus" in literature class" on students3 reading strategies" a stance that" regardless of reading orientation" left her 4ith limited instructional o0tions 4hen students had 0ro1lems. She felt the activities she did use re0resented
&'
remedial 4or8 of sorts" 4or8 she didn3t e20ect to have to do 4ith teenage readers. Ellen3s case suggests that recently educated teachers may 1e develo0ing more detailed and varied conce0tions of students as readers" 1ut that such conce0tions remain on the margins of 4hat counts in the literature curriculum. This finding reveals the inade5uacy of current understandings of the relationshi0 1et4een general reading and disci0linary 8no4ing. For e2am0le" content area reading courses" often statemandated" currently attem0t to address the reading issues faced 1y secondary teachers. Oet" such general methods course4or8" structurally se0arated from su1=ect s0ecific course4or8" tacitly reinforces the divide secondary teachers may e20ect 1et4een their disci0lines and reading. Such courses" in short" 1eg the reading dilemma e20erienced 1y #ndre4" :aroline and Ellen. Jn the other hand" general literacy courses may 1e the only 0laces that treat" e20licitly" students3 actual interactions 4ith 0rint" the reading 0rocesses students use to generate meaning" and various 4ays teachers might su00ort reading. ;ndeed" if general methods course4or8 is of limited hel0" this study suggests also the inade5uacy of su1=ect s0ecific course4or8 that fails to loo8 closely at students3 disci0linary reading transactions" and at ho4 teachers can res0ond to students3 actual encounters 4ith te2ts. 9eader-res0onse methods re0resent a contentious issue in this discussion. 9es0onse methods have effectively 0ositioned students as meaning-ma8ers in literature classrooms" 1ut they have less successfully 0rovided teachers 4ith means for managing the reading difficulties students a00ear to have 4ith com0le2 literary te2ts. ;ndeed" the data a1ove may a00ear to su00ort the o0inion that English education as a 4hole" enamored 4ith res0onse theory" has moved in the 4rong direction" that res0onse methods give too little attention to fundamental issues li8e com0rehension. Oet" 4hile some version of this 0ro1lem may 0lay out in 0ractice" the argument inserts an unfortunate dichotomy 1et4een understanding (i.e. intellectual com0rehension+ and
&,
res0onse (affective reaction+ that is not hel0ful from a Iadamerian 0ers0ective. 9es0onse" as a theory of understanding" cannot 1e seen as se0arate from students3 attem0ts to readMcom0rehend a te2t" as long as res0onse involves ongoing 5uestioning 4ithin a community. Doreover" Ellen" the most res0onse-oriented teacher in the study" a00ears to care dee0ly a1out ho4 4ell 8ids read the com0licated te2ts she assigns. 9es0onse methods are the 4rong cul0rit. This study instead finds relevant strengths 4ithin res0onse-oriented 0edagogy. 9es0onse methods" 4hich encourage students to interact 4ith te2ts on their o4n terms" have 0rovided an o00ortunity for teachers to 1egin to assess 4hat 8ids" in fact" do 4ith literary te2ts. 9es0onse-oriented 0ractices may lead teachers to 1egin to investigate 8ey dimensions of student understanding" as argued for in !ilhelm3s (1$$,+ 0o0ular 4or8. 9es0onse methods are rightly critici6ed for their neglect of socio-cultural and 0olitical dimensions of reading and for an individualistic 1ias" 1ut attention to res0onse is not antithetical to social or critical theories of reading. #ttention to the details of student res0onse" es0ecially as students formulate ideas 4hile reading" 0otentially su00orts critical and democratic interaction among students" as the role of student voice is strengthened in classrooms and a diversity of voices made a00arent. English teachers 4ould 1enefit from su1=ect-s0ecific 0rofessional develo0ment (0reservice and in-service+ that em0hasi6es 4ays of gaining access to students3 4ays of thin8ing 4ith te2ts. Teachers need to learn to locate access 0oints into student thin8ing" as long as teachers resist the tem0tation to vie4 access 0oints as direct 4indo4s onto student thin8ing. From a Iadamerian 0ers0ective" the essential element involves cultivating an inter0retive" self-reflective stance to4ard the act of understanding itself. #s teachers and researchers" 4e must 1e 4illing to 0osition ourselves as 0artially 8no4ledgea1le" or" as Iadamer says" >8no4ing that one does not 8no4? (0.*'*+. Teacher educators must model and su00ort ha1its of revising our notions of
&%
reading" our conce0tions of curriculum" and our 1eliefs a1out ho4 students interact 4ith te2ts. !e can 0ursue 5uestions that are raised 1y the cases of #ndre4" :aroline" and Ellen. !hat ma8es for a useful artifact of student literary understanding7 !hat s0ecific artifacts might 0ro1lemati6e artificial distinctions 1et4een reading and literature7 Ho4 are teachers3 conce0tions of student thin8ing sha0ed 1y 0articular social conte2ts7 Ho4 might o00ortunities to converse 4ith colleagues a1out students3 res0onses to literature 0otentially transform teachers3 conce0tions of curriculum7 This study suggests also that 4e have not fully descri1ed the e20erience of understanding student understanding from teachers3 0ers0ectives<es0ecially the larger curricular forces and literacy assum0tions that dra4 thin8ing a4ay from a child3s 0oint of vie4. #s Scholes (1$$%+ argues" content coverage remains >the organi6ational 1asis of the field? of English at the university level" an a00roach that 4idens >the ga0 1et4een our 0edagogical 0ractices and the needs of our students? (0.1&%+. Secondary teachers 4ith disci0linary ma=ors are a00renticed to assum0tions a1out s0eciali6ed content in the academy" 4here e20ertise means a teacher3s o4n dee0 8no4ledge of a 0articular area 4ithin the 4ide e20anse of the disci0line as 4ell as the a1ility to e20licate te2ts in a scholarly 4ay. Such underlying conce0tions of curriculum as coverage or catalogue (#00le1ee" Gurroughs" E Stevens" )000+ ultimately ground and 0rivilege the remem1ered readings discussed a1ove and disconnect the act of reading from 0rocess of teaching literature. For :aroline" for instance" dee0ly informed remem1ered readings are 0recisely 4hat she relies on in her teaching" 0recisely 4hat define her e20ertise" and" for her" 4hat the !estern literary tradition is a1out. Sac8son (1$'%+" in his classic ethnogra0hy of classroom life" suggests that teachers ultimately may 1e uninterested in a focus on student understanding. The com0le2ity of classrooms" the thousands of decisions" the num1ers of students" the com0ressed time" these
&$
factors focus teacher energy more centrally on issues of managing the environment and 8ee0ing activities going rather than on scaffolding learning. The 0oint is star8 re=oinder to those >human engineers"? as Sac8son calls them" 4ho 4ould ho0e to alter conditions for learning in the classroom 5uic8ly on the 1asis of clinical trials at the university. Oet" #ndre4" :aroline and Ellen3s res0onses suggest that secondary teachers may 1e es0ecially ri0e for frame4or8s and activities that ma8e student thin8ing in the disci0lines more accessi1le. The teachers3 detailed res0onses in this study reflect a healthy" if latent" concern for ho4 students learn" and an a4areness that such 8no4ledge a1out students is critical for instruction. This engagement suggests that English teacher educators can do more to recogni6e the rich curiosity teachers have regarding their students as learners" as these sentiments may reside 5uite near the surface. To conclude" literature teachers3 uncertainty a1out students3 4ays of 8no4ing is intimately connected to 0revailing conce0tions of reading as it relates to literary understandingF it is also rooted in memory-1ased readings of literature that 4or8s against a com0etency-1ased" student-centered 0ers0ective of student understanding. !e must ma8e e20licit teacher conce0tions of reading and the e20erienced 4ays of reading English teachers 1ring to their classrooms" 0lanning and assessment. !e are only =ust 1eginning to a00reciate 4hat it might mean for teachers to learn" not so much a1out students3 4ays of 8no4ing" 1ut from the 0roductive s0ace 1et4een teacher and student 0ers0ectives.
9eferences #lvermann" C. E Phel0s" S. :ontent area reading and literacy. Succeeding in today3s classrooms (*rd Ed+. Goston. #llyn E Gacon. #00le1ee" #. . (1$,%+. The childHs conce0t of story. :hicago. University of :hicago Press.
50
#00le1ee" #. . (1$$'+. :urriculum as conversation. Transforming traditions of teaching and learning. :hicago. University of :hicago Press. #00le1ee" #. ." Gurroughs" 9." E Stevens" #. ()000+. :reating continuity and coherence in high school literature curricula. 9esearch in the teaching of English" *& (*+" *$'-&)$. Gall" C.L. (1$$'+. Teacher learning and the mathematics reforms. !hat 4e thin8 4e 8no4 and 4hat 4e need to learn. Phi delta 8a00an" Darch. Gall" C.L. E :ohen" C.L. (1$$$+. Cevelo0ing 0ractice" develo0ing 0ractitioners. To4ard a 0ractice-1ased theory of 0rofessional develo0ment. ;n L. Carling-Hammond E I. Sy8es (Eds.+" Teaching as the learning 0rofession. Hand1oo8 of 0olicy and 0ractice (00.*-*)+. San Francisco. Sossey-Gass. Grin8er" L. (1$$%+. Using 8no4ledge of students3 thin8ing for instruction. The case if the secondary mathematics curriculum. Pa0er delivered at the annual convention of the #merican Educational 9esearch #ssociation" San Ciego" :alifornia. Gurroughs" 9. (1$$$+. English u0date. # ne4sletter from the :enter on English learning and achievement. :ar0enter" T.P." Fennema" E" Peterson" P.L." E :arey" C.#. (1$%%+. Teachers3 0edagogical content 8no4ledge of students3 0ro1lem solving in elementary arithmetic. Sournal of 9esearch in Dathematics Education" 1$" *%5-&01. :ar0enter" T.P." Fennema" E." E Fran8e" D. (1$$'+. :ognitively guided instruction. # 8no4ledge 1ase for reform in 0rimary mathematics education. Elementary School Sournal" $*" *-)0. Cornan" 9." Dat6 9osen" L." and !ilson" D. (1$$,+. Dulti0le voices" multi0le te2ts. 9eading in the secondary content areas. Portsmouth" H. Heinemann.
51
Earthman" E.#. (1$$)+. :reating the virtual 4or8. 9eaders3 0rocesses in understanding literary te2ts. 9esearch in the Teaching of English" )' (&+" *51-*%&. Fennema" E." Fran8e" D.L." :ar0enter" T.P." E :arey" C.#. (1$$*+. Using childrenHs mathematical 8no4ledge in instruction. #merican educational research =ournal" *0 (*+" 555-5%*. Fran8e" D.L." :ar0enter" T." Fennema" E." #nsell" E." E Gehrend" S. (1$$%+. Understanding teachers3 self-sustaining generative change in the conte2t of 0rofessional develo0ment. Teaching and Teacher Education" 1& (1+" ',-%0. Iadamer" H.I. (1$$'+. Truth and Dethod ()nd revised edition" trans. Soel !einsheimer and Conald I. Darshall+ e4 Oor8. :ontinuum. Iee" S. P. (1$$'+. Social linguistics and literacies. ;deology in discourses ()nd Ed.+. London. Taylor and Francis. Irossman" P.L. (1$$0+. The ma8ing of a teacher. Teacher 8no4ledge E teacher education. e4 Oor8. Teachers :ollege Press. Irossman" P.L. ()001+. 9esearch on the teaching of literature. Finding a 0lace. ;n N. 9ichardson (Ed.+" Hand1oo8 of research on teaching. e4 Oor8. Dacmillan Press.
Irossman" P.L." Thom0son" :." E Cingus" S. (1$$$+. !hen 0ractice meets 0olicy. Studies in conte2ts for 0rofessional develo0ment. The district conte2t. Tech. 9e0ort. Pu1lished 1y the :enter on English Learning E #chievement. Hamel" F.L. ()000+. Teacher understanding of student understanding. Three teachers thin8ing a1out their students reading literature. Un0u1lished doctoral dissertation. Hamel F.L. E Smith" D.!. (1$$%+. Oou canHt 0lay if you donHt 8no4 the rules. ;nter0retive conventions and the teaching of literature to lo4er trac8 students. 9eading and 4riting 5uarterly" 1& (&+" *55-*,,.
5)
Hie1ert" S." :ar0enter" T. Fennema" E." Fuson" L." Human" P." Durray" H." Jlivier" #." !earne" C. (1$$5+. Pro1lem-solving as the 1asis for reform in curriculum and instruction. The case of mathematics. Educational researcher )5 (&+" 1)-)1. Hilloc8s" I." Sr. (1$$$+. !ays of thin8ing" 4ays of teaching. :ollege Press. ;ser" !. (1$,%+. The act of reading. # theory of aesthetic res0onse. Galtimore. Sohn Ho08ins University Press. Sac8son" P.!. (1$'%+. Life in classrooms. e4 Oor8. Holt" 9inehart" !inston. e4 Oor8. Teachers
Lucan" L. E Gec8" ;. L. (1$$,+. Thin8ing aloud and reading com0rehension research. ;n5uiry" instruction" and social interaction. 9evie4 of educational research ', (*+" ),1-)$$. Langer" S.#. (1$$5+. Envisioning literature. Literary understanding and literature instruction. e4 Oor8. Teachers :ollege Press. Lin" 9.L. E Eric8son" F. (1$%'+ Tuantitative methods. Tualitative methods. 9esearch in Teaching and Learning" Nol. ). #merican Educational 9esearch #ssociation. DacDillan. Louis" L.S." Dar8s" H.D. E Lruse" S. (1$$'+. TeachersH 0rofessional community in restructuring schools. #merican educational research =ournal ** (&+" ,5,-,$%. DcLaughlin" D. !. (1$$*+. !hat matters most in teachers3 4or80lace conte2t. ;n Little" S.!. E DcLaughlin" D.!. (Eds.+" Teachers3 4or8. ;ndividuals" colleagues" and conte2ts (00. ,$-10*+. e4 Oor8. Teachers college 0ress. e4 Oor8.
e4ell" I. E. E Holt" 9. #. (1$$,+. >#utonomy and o1ligation in the teaching of literature. Teachers3 classroom curriculum and de0artmental consensus.? English Education" )$ (1+" 1%-*,.
5*
ystrand" D. (1$$,+. J0ening Cialogue. Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. e4 Oor8. Teachers :ollege Press.
Pearson" P.C." 9oehler" L." Cole" S." E Cuffy" I. (1$$)+. Cevelo0ing e20ertise in reading com0rehension. ;n S.S. Samuels E #.E. Farstru0 (Eds.+" !hat research says to the teacher ()nd Ed+ (00.1&5-1$$+. e4ar8" CE. ;nternational 9eading #ssociation.
Pes8in" S. (1$$%+. :onstructing meaning 4hen reading 0oetry. #n e20ert-novice study. :ognition and instruction" 1' (*+" )*5-)'*. Peterson" P.L." Fennema" E." E :ar0enter" T.P. (1$$1+. TeachersH 8no4ledge of studentsH mathematics 0ro1lem-solving 8no4ledge. ;n S. Gro0hy (Ed.+" #dvances in research on teaching. Nol.) TeachersH 8no4ledge of su1=ect matter as it relates to their teaching 0ractice (00.&$-%'+. Ireen4ich" : . S#; 0ress. Pressley" D. E #ffler1ach" P. (1$$5+. Ner1al 0rotocols of reading. The nature of constructively res0onsive reading. Hillsdale" .S.. La4rence Erl1aum #ssociates. Purves" #.:. E 9i00ere" N. (1$'%+. Elements of 4riting a1out a literary 4or8. # study of res0onse to literature. of Teachers of English. 9a1ino4it6" P.S. (1$%,+. Gefore reading. arrative conventions and the 0oetics of inter0retation. ;thaca. :ornell University Press. 9a1ino4it6" P.S (1$$%+. ># thousand times and never li8e?. 9e-reading for class. ;n P.S. 9a1ino4it6 E D.!. Smith" #uthori6ing readers. 9esistance and res0ect in the teaching of literature (00.%%-10)+. e4 Oor8. Teachers :ollege Press. e4 Oor8. o1le and o1le. :TE 9esearch re0ort $. Ur1ana" ;L. ational :ouncil
9osen1latt" L. (1$*%M1$,'+. Literature as e20loration.
9osen1latt" L. (1$,%+. The reader" the te2t" the 0oem. :ar1ondale" ;L. Southern ;llinois University Press.
5&
Schoen1ach" 9." Ireenleaf" :." :6i8o" :." E Hur4it6" L. (1$$$+. 9eading for understanding. # guide to im0roving reading in middle and high school classrooms. San Francisco. Sossey-Gass. Scholes" 9. (1$%5+. Te2tual 0o4er. Literary theory and the teaching of English. :T. Oale University Press. Scholes" 9. (1$$%+. The rise and fall of English. e4 Haven" :T. Oale University Press. e4 Haven"
Shulman" L.S. (1$%'+. Those 4ho understand. Lno4ledge gro4th in teaching. Educational researcher" 15 ()+" &-1&. Shulman" L.S. (1$%,+. Lno4ledge and teaching. Foundations of the ne4 reform. Harvard educational revie4" 5, (1+" 1-)). Smith" D.!. (1$%$+. Teaching the inter0retation of irony in 0oetry. 9esearch in the teaching of English" )*" )5&-),). Thomson" S. (1$%,+. Understanding teenagers3 reading. 9eading 0rocesses and the teaching of literature. Dary1orough. #ustralian #ssociation of Teachers of English. Nacca" 9.T. E Nacca" S.L. ()00)+. 9eading in the content areas. Literacy and learning across the curriculum. Goston. #lly and Gacon. !almsley" S. #. (1$$)+. 9eflections on the state of elementary literature instruction. Language #rts" '$ (,+" 50%-51&. !ilhelm" S.C. (1$$,+. Oou gotta GE the 1oo8. Teaching engaged and reflective reading 4ith adolescents. e4 Oor8. Teachers :ollege Press.
!ilhelm" S.C." Edmiston" G." Geane" S.#. (1$$%+. ;magining to Learn. ;n5uiry" Ethics" and ;ntegration Through Crama. Portsmouth" H. Heinemann. !ine1urg" S.S. ()001+. Historical thin8ing and other unnatural acts. :harting the future of teaching the 0ast. Philade0hia. Tem0le University Press.
55
#00endi2 #
Trans!ri t 2ummary -"am le &ndrews Interview @:
00.1-) ; descri1e thin8-aloud 0rocess. #G sho4s interest in the >reading-thin8ing connections? that are revealed 1y the 0rocess. ote #G later re0orted to me that he tal8ed 4ith Ellen and :aroline a1out the 0ur0oses of the study. #G had told them that ; 4as in fact Kteaching them.K The thin8-aloud" =ust in the nature of the activity" focused his attention on his o4n reading 0rocesses in more detail that he had done in the 0ast. !hy does he use the term KreadingMthin8ing connectionsK7 Jne thing ; admire in #ndre4 already is his o0ennessMeagerness to learn something a1out his 4or8. 00.*-5 #G rehearses thin8-aloud 4ith K9unner.K He is 0recise" sto00ing at every 4ord or allusion for 4hich he has a 5uestion. He 4onders a1out unusual language" admires certain images (Koh" thatHs a nice idea--K+" and 4or8s to ma8e general sense of the 0icture" successfully (KJ8ay" sheHs a re0orter.K+ #G tal8s a1out 0icturing the scene. 00.5-$ Ioes through the o0ening section of KLong Glac8 SongK from 9ichard !rightHs collection" Uncle TomHs :hildren. otes his familiarity 4ith the story. Sto0s on almost every line--4ith a 5uestion (K!hy 4ould she thin8 of 4ater7K+" o1servation (KThatHs odd" may1e thereHs something 4rong 4ith the child.K+" andMor 0ersonal connection (Ioing 1ac8" of course" ;Hve had 8ids...K+. He also notes 0ossi1le literary techni5ues" such as foreshado4ing. Jn 0.% he criti5ues the s0ea8erHs e20lanation for the 1a1yHs fussiness re Kteething.K Jn 0. $ he ma8es larger connections and sees the o0ening se5uence as revealing the child as a 0ro1lem Kin a larger 4ay.K The child is Kcontrolling her life in a 4ay she doesnHt 4ant it to.K 00.10-1* #G 0rovides s8illed reading of Heaney3s KPersonal Helicon.K Da8es several 0ersonal associations 4ith 4ells. E20resses confusion over title. :omments on interesting images (K:an you 0lummet u07K+. Pu66les over some 0hrases. Cisagrees 4ith the s0ea8er. #nd ma8es meta0horical lea0 to connect 4ells to 0oems. 9eveals that he 4rites 0oems. Has thoughtful a00roach to 4hat 0oems are for (0.1)+. 00.1&-15 :omments on o4n reading 0rocesses. ;dentifies that he ma8es 0ersonal connections" that he sto0s and 0auses over KsavoryK 0assages" and that he tries to Kconnect the ideas that are going on.K
5'
00.1'-1% Tal8s a1out ho4 his students 4ould res0ond to KPersonal Helicon.K First he as8s 4hat the conte2t 4ould 1e. (#re they reading this on their o4n" or are 4e reading and discussing it7K 0.1'+. He finds this a Kgood 5uestion.K #G says students 4ouldnHt 8no4 4hat a K4indlassK is. otes students might not have 1ac8ground to ma8e 0ersonal connections. Dight not 8no4 terminology (K1ric8yardK+. Students might not 8no4 a1out Kfo2gloveK or the 4ord KscaresomeK (1'+. otes that students 4ould not li8ely ma8e same meta0horical lea0 he made at the end. #G identifies the third stan6a as a difficult one (1%+. Students might get confused. #nd Koftentimes it seems once they tri0 they ... stay do4n.K 00.1%-)* !hat strategies 4ould students 1ring to this 0oem7 #G 1elieves they 4ould 1ring 0ersonal e20erience to the 0oem. K!e all do as readers"K he says. K; may do it =ust a little more consciouslyK (1$+. Ciscusses ho4 for students reading a 0oem K4or8s in a different 4ay.K Dany treat the 0oem as assignment--to =ust get finished. Dany 4ould struggle. Dany might not even read it. #G discusses 4hat he might do 4ith the 0oem--0rovide anecdote a1out 4ells. Day give students 5uestions. Gut #G shies a4ay from giving tests on 0oems. Poetry is Ktoo s0ecialK for such KcrassK treatment. ()0+. He isnHt sure heHd do anything s0ecial 4ith this 0oem. Has difficulty thin8ing this through" since itHs so out of conte2t. He mentions having students 4rite long 0aragra0hs or 1M) 0age analyses on 4hat they get from the 0iece. #G and ; discuss u0coming intervie4s. @ ot transcri1edA otes ;Hm struc8 1y the so0histication of #GHs reading of the literature" 1ut the relative narro4ness in his 0edagogical thin8ing a1out literature. ;n other 4ords" he has difficulty translating his o4n 0ractice 4ith te2ts in terms of ho4 to hel0 students understand te2ts. Part of this may 1e influenced 1y his unclear sense of 4here students actually are" of ho4 students actually read. Jther than that they donHt li8e it and see it as an Kassignment.K
Thin8-aloud methodology has 0rovided researchers 4ith access to readers3 thin8ing in 4ays ty0ically not illuminated 1y studies using ad=unct 5uestions or 0ost-reading res0onses (Lucan E Gec8" 1$$,+. Still" thin8-aloud methods often suffer from the naYve assum0tion that 4hat individuals s0ontaneously say during reading is a trans0arent 4indo4 onto their real thin8ing. !hile thin8-alouds do 0rovide a ne4 lens 4ith 4hich to vie4 reader 0rocessing" critics 0oint out that researcher 0rom0ts and instructions can easily 1ias reader res0onse. Dore 1roadly" ver1al reading 0rotocols have 1een challenged for their insensitivity to situational conte2ts" es0ecially the social and cultural factors affecting the 4ay individuals res0ond to te2ts (see Pressley E #ffler1ach" 1$$5+. For e2am0le" thin8ing aloud 4ith a university researcher is 5uite different from sharing such thin8ing 4ith friends" or alone" or 4ith colleagues in a mandated district 4or8sho0. 9ecogni6ing these limits" my o4n use of reading thin8-alouds attem0ts to uncover hidden" relevant details of teacher decision-ma8ing.
i
Iiven s0ace limitations" ; focus on t4o teachers only in each section 1elo4" 1ut the general findings a00ly to all three teachers in the study (cf. Hamel )000+.
ii iii
;t is 4orth 0ointing out that reading against memory can reflect a variety of theoretical stances 4ith literature. :aroline3s e20erience 4ith e4 :riticism is reflected in this reading. # different re-reading of the 0assage might involve other assum0tions" e.g. attention to gendered language or to 0sycho-analytic (0arent-child+ relationshi0s. :onte2ts for shared teacher thin8ing" although they 4ere not a focus of this study" are also critical for teacher learning a1out student understanding.
iv

6903 - RTE 02-22, Final Submission

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

6903 - RTE 02-22, Final Submission

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Teacher Understanding

Fred L. Hamel University of Puget Sound

Sub& category Coded Te(t

scene" getting a fe4 names and a fe4 5uotes"

9osen1latt" L. (1$*%M1$,'+. Literature as e20loration.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen