xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200373Ka 4500
controlfield tag 001 002210755
007 cr bnu|||uuuuu
008 100617s2009 flu sb 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002816
Multimodal text designers
h [electronic resource] :
b a case study of literacy events in a multicultural context /
by Mary-Virginia Feger.
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 288 pages.
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2009.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
ABSTRACT: The erasure of Latino/a adolescents' multiliteracies in school settings affects both their views of education and their entry into the community outside of school. Framed by literacy-as-social-practices perspectives and communities of practice theory, this case study explored what happened when a group of 13 Latino/a adolescents and their Latina teacher engaged in a six-week play production in an after-school program and performed the play for parents. It examined the relationship between the participants' discourse practices and their performance, and determined how they validated their performances. Data collected included observations, interviews, students' written reflective responses, a fieldwork journal, and a DVD of the performance.Data were analyzed using Discourse Analysis (Gee, 2005), three characteristics of multimodal literacy adapted from three features Cowan (2003) used to analyze Latino visual discourse, and Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The findings revealed a complex performance community mediated by a set of discourse practices and tools, including a script and a video. The video's history, traced to a former 7th grade after-school group, and the participants' social practices framed their interactions. The findings revealed the discourse practice of playing around was constructed in relationship with the teacher's expectations and became an intractable binary. After one actor assessed the situation as hopeless because of the teacher's involvement in the construction of the discourses, she "left" the play and constructed herself through a new critical discourse, and imagined an easier and more equitable discourse.Another discourse juxtaposed Discourses of immigration, recognizing them as speaking to one another across history. Although the methodology was adequate for answering the research questions, it was inadequate for reaching findings on how the performances created effects for both the actors and audience. Both pedagogical and methodological errors were the result of how the visual world of print shaped our thought, extending the visual into the social world, separating it from the other senses. The actors drew from elements of the six modes of meaning to create a system of multimodal design in their performance text, and although they validated their final performance in reflective responses, they invalidated their rehearsal performances. Elements of their Discourse model serve as a blueprint for a Design for Performance Learning.The Design proposes that Latino/a adolescents take responsibility for their learning by producing sharable digital artifacts in after-school performance communities, which might prove to be contexts in which Latino/a adolescents' multiliteracies are validated rather than erased.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Co-advisor: Kathryn L. Laframboise, Ph.D
Co-advisor: Nancy L. Williams, Ph. D.
English language learners
x Reading and Language Arts Education
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
Multimodal Text Designers: A Case Study of L iteracy Events in a Multicultural Context by Mary-Virginia Feger A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Childhood Educa tion and Literacy Studies College of Education University of South Florida Co-Major Professor: Kath ryn L. Laframboise, Ph.D. Co-Major Professor: Nancy L. Williams, Ph.D. Linda S. Evans, Ph.D. James R. King, Ed.D. Date of Approval: March 23, 2009 Keywords: English language learne rs, discourse, after-school program, Latino/a adolescents, middle school Copyright 2009, Mary-Virginia Feger
Acknowledgements Although my gratitude is ineffable, I would like to acknowledge the following exemplary professors and scholars whose a ssistance was influential in shaping and guiding my work on this study. First and most importantly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Kathryn Laframboise for her patience and skillful direction. Second, I would like to express my deep a ppreciation to Dr. Nancy Williams for her kindness and support. Third, I would like to express my profound appreciation to Dr. James King for his caring, knowledge, and wisd om. Finally, I wish to thank Dr. Linda Evans for her gracious will ingness to fill an unexpected vacancy on my committee and serve as a representative of my cognate area.
i Table of Contents List of Tables vi Abstract vii Chapter One: Introduction 1 Background of the Study 1 The Community 1 Erasing Literacy 2 Validating Literacy 4 Case Studies 5 Projective Identity 6 Participation and Reification 7 Purpose and Questions 8 Summary 8 Limitations and Key Assumptions 9 Definitions of Terms 9 Context 9 Culturally Responsive Pedagogy 10 Literacy(ies) 10 Multiliteracies 10 Literacy Practices 11 Literacy Events 11 Conclusion 11 Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 13 Introduction 13 Major Theoretical Issues in Literacy 13 Summary 15 Tensions in Literacy 17 Orality versus Literacy 17 Skills versus Practices 18 Literacy as Social Practices 19 Home and School Language Socialization 21 Summary 21 Discourse Practices 22 Culturally Appropriate Classroom Talk 22 A Critical View of Child Development Research 23 The Literacy Myth 24
ii GeeÂ’s Theory of Discourses 25 Meta-Level Knowledge is Learned 26 Discourses and Culture 27 Discourses and Literacies 27 Summary 28 A Critical Look at Literacy as So cial Practices 29 Literacy in Action 31 Literacy Sponsors 31 Extending Social Practices 32 Summary 34 Visual Discourse 34 Valuing Non-mainstream Literacy Practice 34 A Diversity of Choices 35 The New Visual Literacy 36 Visual Discourse Practices Am ong Latino/a Youth 36 Summary 40 Identity Theory and L2 Learning 41 Identity and Literacy in an On-line Context 44 An Untapped Power 45 Summary 46 A Pedagogy of Pluralism 47 New Designs 48 Summary 50 Second Language Writing Theory and Pedagogy 51 Current Traditional Rhetoric 52 The Process Approach 52 The Genre Approach 52 Sociocultural Theory and Writing 53 The Social Constructionist Approach 54 The Reading-Writing Relationship 56 Reading Constructs Meaning 56 Summary 57 The Socio-Historical Context 58 An Oppressive Cultural Model 60 The Cultural Ecological Paradigm 61 A Forgotten Struggle 62 Monoliths and Misconceptions 63 Gender, Immigration, and Teaching 64 Summary 64 Culturally Responsive Pedagogy 65 Summary 69 Multimodality and Critical Literacy 70 Multimodality 70 Critical Literacy 72
iii Summary 73 Conclusion 73 Chapter Three: Methodology 75 Introduction 75 Outline of the Study 76 Theoretical Framework 76 Research Questions 78 Case Study Criteria 79 Participant Selection and Consent 82 Purposeful Sampling 82 Student Assent 83 Parental Consent 83 Teacher Consent 84 Data Collection 84 Data Sources 84 Fieldwork 87 Teacher Interviews 87 Data Collected from Students 87 Documents 88 Interviews 88 Data Collection Matrix 89 Character Chart 89 Data Management 90 Data Analysis 91 Introduction 91 Discourse Analysis 91 Three Characteristics of Multimodal Literacy 93 The Contextual Characteristic 94 The Intertextual Characteristic 94 The Social Characteristic 95 Grounded Theory 96 Open Coding 96 Axial Coding 96 Plan to Insure Credibility 97 Triangulation 97 Role of the Researcher 98 Presentation of the Case 99 Trustworthiness 100 Conclusion 102 Chapter Four: Results 103 Introduction 103 The Story of the Play Production 104 The Vote 105
iv A Summary of the Novel 108 Rising Action: Days 1 to 9 109 On the Stage: Day 7 109 An Audience: Day 8 116 The Turning Point: Days 10 to 17 125 Disagreement: Day 10 125 A Decisive Event: Day 12 128 Resolution: Days 18 to 20 134 Seriousness: Day 19 134 Discourse Analysis 140 Discourse model 1: Being Responsible 143 Summary and Critique 160 Table 1 164 Discourse model 2: Playing Around 166 Summary and Critique 173 Table 2 178 Characteristics of the Performances 179 The Contextual Characteristic 180 The Sociohistorical Context 180 The Contemporary Context 183 The Intertextual Characteristic 184 Designing Meaning 184 Being Initiated 188 The Social Characteristic 189 The Level One Social Characteristic 190 The Level Two Social Characteristic 192 Modeling 194 The Role of Parody 195 What Would Your Character Think? 198 Symbols of Participation 199 Acting in a Certain Way 200 Summary 201 Validation/Invalidation 201 Validation of the Final Performance 202 Invalidation of the Rehearsal Performances 206 Conclusion 209 Chapter Five: Conclusions 214 Introduction 214 Limitations of Discourse 215 Summary 219 Limitations of the Visual World 222 Summary 225 Multimodal Text Designers 225 Summary 229
v A Design for Performance Learning 230 Responsibility 230 History 232 Teamwork 233 Summary 234 Implications 234 Implications for Administrators 235 Implications for Teachers 236 Implications for Researchers 238 Suggestions for Further Research 239 Educational Significance 240 References 242 Appendices 265 Appendix A: Consent/Assent Forms 266 Appendix B: Teacher Interview Questions 276 Appendix C: Student Interview Questions 278 Appendix D: Data Collection Matrix 279 Appendix E: Character Chart 280 Appendix F: Tables of Discourse Models 283 About the Author End Page
vi List of Tables 1 The Discourse model of being responsible 164 2 The Discourse model of playing around 178 3 The Discourse model of strategies 283 4 The Discourse model of the complexity of performing 284 5 The Discourse model of the emotional effect of performing 285 6 The caring Discourse model 286 7 The Discourse model of unwilling participation 287
vii MULTIMODAL TEXT DESIGNERS: A CASE STUDY OF LITERACY EVENTS IN A MULTICULTURAL CONTEXT Mary-Virginia Feger ABSTRACT The erasure of Latino/a adolescentsÂ’ multilite racies in school settings affects both their views of education and their entry into the community outside of school. Framed by literacy-as-social-practices perspectives a nd communities of practice theory, this case study explored what happened when a group of 13 Latino/a adolescents and their Latina teacher engaged in a six-week play production in an after-school program and performed the play for parents. It examined the rela tionship between the participantsÂ’ discourse practices and their performance, and determin ed how they validated their performances. Data collected included observa tions, interviews, studentsÂ’ wr itten reflective responses, a fieldwork journal, and a DVD of the performance. Data were analyzed using Discourse Anal ysis (Gee, 2005), three characteristics of multimodal literacy adapted from three featur es Cowan (2003) used to analyze Latino visual discourse, and Grounded Theory (Gla ser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The findings revealed a complex performance community mediated by a set of discourse practices and tools, including a scri pt and a video. The vi deoÂ’s history, traced to a former 7th grade after-school group, and the part icipantsÂ’ social practices framed their interactions. The findings revealed the discourse practice of playing around was constructed in relationship w ith the teacherÂ’s expectations and became an intractable
viii binary. After one actor asse ssed the situation as hopele ss because of the teacherÂ’s involvement in the construction of the discour ses, she Â“leftÂ” the play and constructed herself through a new critical discourse, a nd imagined an easier and more equitable discourse. Another discourse juxtaposed Disc ourses of immigration, recognizing them as speaking to one another across history. Although the methodology was adequate for an swering the research questions, it was inadequate for reaching findings on how the performances created effects for both the actors and audience. Both pedagogical and methodological errors were the result of how the visual world of prin t shaped our thought, extending the visual into the social world, separating it from the other senses. The actors drew from elements of the six modes of meaning to create a system of multimodal design in their performance text and although they validated their final performance in reflective responses, they invalidated their reh earsal performances. Elements of their Discourse model serve as a blueprint for a Design for Performance Learning. The Design proposes that Latino/a ad olescents take responsibility for their learning by producing sharable digital artifact s in after-school performance communities, which might prove to be contexts in whic h Latino/a adolescentsÂ’ multiliteracies are validated rather than erased.
1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Background of the Study The narratives that people share conn ect them through geography, history, language, and culture to other places on eart h. Their artifacts, practices, and language shape their experiences and perspectives. Thes e varied artifacts, practices, and languages are found in groups that gather for vari ous purposes and wherein participantsÂ’ experiences and viewpoints help them to make myriad conscious and unconscious decisions as they involve themselves in the communityÂ’s shared practices. Yet these groups do not exist in a vacuum, but rather are embedded in broader communities that must be described in order to develop a complete understanding of each specific community. The Community This naturalistic case study of a group of 7th grade Latino/a ELLs and their Latina teacher who produced a play in the contex t of an after-school program took place a middle school situated in a southwest Flor ida community that has undergone dramatic growth over the past two decades. As a result of a variety of changing economic, social and geographical factors that have draw n many diverse people to the region, the population expansion of this community has resu lted in an enormous range of wealth as demonstrated by an array of multi-million dol lar ranches and beachfront estates to the
2 more modest condos and apartments of middle and working class citizens and immigrants. The middle school is located in a neighborhood composed of a mixture of condominiums, apartments, and single-family homes. The local economy offers a range of employment opportunities th at attract immigrants: touris m, health services, packing and shipping, construction, maintenance, and others. Given these employment opportunities, the likelihood exists for families to consider the dreams they have for their children. Erasing Literacy Many residents of the neighborhood ride bicycles, or walk their dogs on a concrete pathway that winds through a gra ssy tree-lined swath amid apartments and condominiums. Although its appearance has been sporadic, graffiti that signifies the names of rival gangs has appeared on the si dewalks, walls, or ot her surfaces in the neighborhood. However, what is done with the graffiti, and the possible reasons for these actions, is noteworthy. Whenever graffiti has appeared in the neighborhood, whether on walls, fences, or sidewalks, it is painted over within a day or two of its appearance. Its swift removal suggests that the act of writing gang-related gr affiti, is an unacceptable discourse practice and the action of painting it over has seemed to be effective to some extent in reducing its occurrence. While there may be other invisibl e factors involved in the reduction of gang activity and graffiti, such as parents or co mmunity officialsÂ’ actions to discourage the practice, the graffiti-writers have not alwa ys heeded these interventions and have
3 managed to persist in occasionally seizing an opportunity to in scribe insignia on a neighborhood surface. Although the exact reason for the reducti on of graffiti is unknown, the tension between those who write graffiti and those who erase graffiti was important in terms of the issue in this case study, that is, describing a contex t in which adolescent ELLsÂ’ literacies are validated. Descri bing such a context in which adolescent ELLsÂ’ literacies are validated and supported rather than erased has a lot to say about how the adolescents assume literate identities and join th e larger community outside of school. In his dissertation on Latino visual discour se, Cowan (2003) related an interesting story in which he noticed that one of his di fficult Latino students, contrary to his normal disruptive behavior, was making a concentrat ed effort on a task with his book for the unusual span of two or three days. Cowan did not apprehend the significance of the studentÂ’s concentration until he checked the boo ks at the end of the year and found that the student had erased a whol e page of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's short story "The Speckled Band" from the school textbook. Co wan interpreted this behavior as the studentÂ’s expenditure of an intense effort to erase dominant literacies While this is so, it is important to ask why he wanted to erase the dominant literacies as represented in the classroom text and, how the studentÂ’s erasur e shaped his participation in his own and othersÂ’ experiences of dominant literacies. As a consequence of the way he participated in dominant literacies, the next reader of the book (who turned out to be the teacher) had to deal with the new meaning the student had given to the text. Analogously, those who write gang-related graffiti might be saying that the property ownersÂ’ recognize their literacies at least in a minimal way through its removal,
4 and the property owners might be saying th at writing on public surfaces is an unlawful practice that can be easily erased. Although literacies (whether mainstream or nonmainstream) can be easily erased, validati ng literacies involve s challenges. These challenges were the focus of this naturalis tic case study, which e xplored what happened when a group of 7th grade Latino/a ELLs and their Latina teacher produced a play in the context of an after-school program. This case study sought to explore the relationship between the participantsÂ’ disc ourse practices and their pe rformance and to determine whether the participants validated their performance and if so, how. Validating Literacy I proposed that the after-school context e xplored in this naturalistic case study was a setting in which the participantsÂ’ multiple literacies were validated. I believed that the teacherÂ’s experiences a nd involvement in cultural events outside of school contributed to how she repres ented herself in her language, dress, thoughts, actions, and lifestyle. In addition, I believed that the participants brought unique knowledge and literacy practices to the af ter-school community and I wondered what would happen as they used their knowledge and literacy practices in the play production. The after-school context bore little resemblance to a traditional classroom setting. Instead, the collaborative gr oup activities occurr ed within a community of practice (Wenger, 1998), which is defined as a group of people working together toward a shared goal. The theory of communities of practi ce conceptualizes individualsÂ’ combined contributions to learning through meaning, practice, and identity. In communities of practice, Wenger stated, the purpose for lear ning involves integrating oneself into the communityÂ’s shared performance, which m eans taking on new identities. Community of
5 practice theory was used as the theoretical framework in a recent study of middle school ELLs. Case Studies I conducted two searches to determine wh ether this type of case study had been conducted in the past. In the first search I used the key words ELLs case study and middle school The results yielded 8 dissertations since 1997. Substituting the key word adolescent for middle school yielded 4 dissertations since 1997 and replacing middle school with Latino yielded 7 dissertations since 1992. From among these nineteen dissertations on middle school English langua ge learners (ELLs), one descriptive qualitative case study used Discourse Analys is and a community of practice framework to examine how 6th grade ELLs took up math discourse in a standards-based mathematics classroom (Hansen-Thomas, 2005). Hansen-T homas concluded that, while standardsbased instruction benefited the students, the cu rricula did not identify the necessary math discourse, and the onus was put on teachers to isolate the target discourse and make it explicit for students. In the second search I used the key words adolescent English language learners and after school program which yielded 9 dissertations since 1997. Another search using the key words after school program middle school and ELLs yielded 15 dissertations since 1999. Substituting the key word Latino for ELLs generated 35 dissertations. However, using the key words drama play or performance adolescent ELLs and after school program produced no results. As a result of th ese two searches, I decided that this case study promised to yield significant findi ngs because it concerned a phenomenon that had not been investigated in depth in the past.
6 Projective Identity The concept of projective identity is significant in learning. This concept is illustrated in the following vignette. Focuse d on preparations for a forthcoming cultural celebration, the adolescent ELLs were drawing their nationsÂ’ flags, which most depicted as rectangular shapes. However, one student from Puerto Rico stepped forward to disagree with this representation, and, as ev eryone gathered around him, he placed a large piece of drawing paper on the floor and began to draw the flag as if the wind were blowing it and giving it life. As he drew, he argued that dr awing the flag using a simple rectangular design did not communicate cultura l pride, and the depiction of the wind blowing the flag was essential to communicat e the cultural pride associated with the symbol of oneÂ’s country (field notes, May, 2004). According to Gee (1990/1996), many culturall y and linguistically diverse students acquire meta-knowledge Â“because they have had certain experiences which have caused them to think about a particular Discourse in a reflective and critic al wayÂ” (p. 140). The Latino student articulated his knowledge becau se he had acquired it as one of his Discourses. The studentÂ’s ability to interpret the visual discourse was the result of the experience of becoming socialized into a pa rticular Discourse. Hi s discourse practices also demonstrated that he thought about his explanation in terms of what he thought the other students might expect. Acquiring a ne w identity, as the Ne w London Group (1996) stated, is the goal of transf ormed practice, and takes place when two Discourses are juxtaposed.
7 Participation and Reification In a community of practice (Wenger, 1998) participation is conceived of as playing an active role in a community and ha s to do with peopleÂ’s acknowledgement of othersÂ’ humanity. In WengerÂ’s view, for exampl e, a pet fish does not participate in a family, but a puppy does because of peopleÂ’s ab ility to recognize that the puppy learns new things just as they do. According to We nger, participation is differentiated from the more social term engagement because particip ation involves identity and is not subject to our intention or will. Reification is the complement to particip ation. An example of reification is the forms and procedures involved in purchasi ng a home. The mortgage agreement with its figures, dates, and signatures reifies the respons ibility of the mortgage e, at the same time as it confers the status of ownership. Almost all first-tim e homeowners talk similarly about the experience of signing the mortgage papers because of reification. They project themselves into the procedures and talk about what it meant to them and others, who participate similarly, also recognize their meaning. Reification is a versatile ability of human beings to translate their experience into meaning by creating things that give a sense of reality to their experience. From simple things such as giving names to paint colors (e.g. Aztec Tan) to the complex classification of animal species (e.g. callinectes sapidus, commonly known as the Chesapeake Bay blue crab), reification is pervasive and keeps hum an beings busy in the constant process of making meaning.
8 Purpose and Questions The purpose of this naturalistic case st udy was to explore what happened when 7th grade Latino/a ELLs and their Latina teacher produced a play in the context of an afterschool program and to determine the relati onship between the participantsÂ’ discourse practices and their performance. In addition, I sought to descri be the characteristics of the performances and to find out if the particip ants validated their pe rformance, and if so, how. The research questions that guided the exploration of this study were as follows: 1. What happens when a group of 7th grade Latino ELLs and their Latina teacher produce a play in an after-school program during the final six weeks of the school year? a. What is the relationship between the participantsÂ’ discourse practices and their performance? 2. What are the characteristics of the performances? a. Do the participants validate their performance? If so, how? Summary The contrasting themes of erasing literaci es and validating literacies constitute one of the major tensions in the education of linguistically and cultu rally diverse students. This tension was the focus of this naturalis tic case study, which e xplored what happened when a group of 7th grade Latino/a ELLs and their Latina teacher produced a play in the context of an after-school program. In addi tion to exploring what happened during the play production, this study sought to explore the relationship between the participantsÂ’ discourse practices and their performance a nd to determine whether the participants validated their performa nce and if so, how.
9 The answers to these questions would be useful in moving the field forward by establishing a theory based on the main issue in the case. This issue was how to describe and understand the participantsÂ’ engagement w ith literacy practices and to explain their perceptions in order to facil itate culturally responsive pedagogy to support academic learning. Limitations and Key Assumptions One of the limitations of the study consisted of the unusual time frame for the study. Although the final six weeks of the school year might be considered an atypical time frame in which to conduct a case study, th e unusual nature of th e unit of analysisÂ— the playÂ—with its alternative approach to l iteracy and its context in an after-school program, made it necessary to conduct the study during this time. In addition, the school district granted permission to collect data during the last six weeks of the school year. Finally, a key assumption of this case st udy was that the findings would not be generalizable because the focus of the case was in learning about how this particular case worked. Definition of Terms For this study, the terms context, cultur ally responsive pedagogy, literacy(ies), multiliteracies, literacy practices, and lit eracy events were defined as follows: Context In qualitative research, c ontext is crucial to unders tanding (Patton, 2002). Context consists of who, what, where, when, why, and how that describe the details of the case. Naturalistic inquiry maintains the details of the context (Patt on, 2002). A key tenet of constructivism is that meanings are unique to the individuals in each context, therefore
10 results from one context cannot be genera lized to another cont ext (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). Culturally Responsive Pedagogy According to Ladson-Billings (1995) this type of instruction refers to a compatible connection between the culture associated w ith the context of the home and the culture associated with the context of the classroom In other words, the teacher has acquired practices that match practices of the home cultu re, or the teacher is from the same cultural background as the students. Literacy(ies) Gee (1990/1996) defined this as Â“the mastery of a se condary DiscourseÂ” (p. 143). In addition, because there are i nnumerable secondary Discourses, it is always plural (Gee, 1990/1996). Since it is a practice, or set of practices, determ ined within cultural groups, users participate in various personal as well as academic practices within school, at home, and within other groups (Ferdman, 1990; Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group, 1994; Faulkner, 2005). The traditional definition refe rs to a more narrow set of skills used when individuals engage print on a pa ge of text (Lee & Croninger, 1994). Multiliteracies This notion considers how students can be connected to ways of using language and texts that reflect the culturally and so cially diverse aspects of the studentsÂ’ knowledge. This idea refers to the different visu al and electronic forms in which literacy appears in the globalized economy (S magorinsky, Cook & Reed, 2005; New London Group, 1996; Street, 2005).
11 Literacy practices This concept links the actions of reading and writing with the social context that shapes and is shaped by their practices. Thes e include literacy events (incidents that involve literacy) and the models of those events in addition to the Â“ideological preconceptions that underpin th emÂ” (Street, 1993, p. 12-13). Literacy events These are Â“any event involving print, su ch as group negotia tion of meaning in written texts (e.g. an ad), individuals Â‘looking things upÂ’ in reference booksÂ” (Gee, 1990/1996, p. 62). According to Heath (1983), in cidents that involve Â“the written wordÂ…have their rules of occurrence and a ppropriatenessÂ” and are regular, repetitive activities in life (p. 200). Conclusion This naturalistic case study e xplored what happened when 7th grade Latino/a adolescents and their Latina teacher formed themselves into an after-school group. This after-school group was seen as a community of pract ice in which the participants focused on a shared objective, namely the production of a play. While the skills approach to literacy instruction isolates skills by dec ontextualizing them w ith the goal of getting students ready for future employment, by doing so, it gives up the important element of production. In addition, forfeiting production does not take advantage of participation and reification. On the other hand, a community of practice perspective focuses on the task at hand, which is thought to have economic or soci al value. In additi on to describing what happened during the play production, this st udy sought to determine the relationship between the participantsÂ’ disc ourse practices and their pe rformance. To explore the
12 context further, this study sought to describe the characteristics of the performance and to determine if the participants validate d their performance, and if so, how.
13 CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Five major areas are of interest in this study. In this literature review, I will first review major theoretical issues in literacy to document the hi storical development of theory that has brought literacy learning to the point where it is today. Second, I will describe the development of theory and research in sec ond language writing. In order to know how to improve writing instruction for ELLs, a review of the theoretical unde rpinnings of writing research brings to light the scholarship of the past and situates new research on this trajectory. Third, I will examine the social-histori cal context in order to dispel some of the common myths about linguistic minority students. Fourth, I will present the research on culturally responsive educati on that provides a theoreti cal background necessary to describe the classroom context in this study. Finally, I will discuss multimodality and critical literacies to provide a means to discuss the decisions the participants make in the design of their texts. Major Theoretical Issues in Literacy A direct result of the former Soviet UnionÂ’s 1957 launch of the space capsule Sputnik was that foreign language expertise became vital in the global power struggle (Raimes, 1991). At that time, instructional approaches in foreign language education were influenced by behaviorism (Skinner, 1953) and featured th e language labs that
14 called for extensive repetiti on. Structural approaches to linguistics (Chomsky, 1965) had an effect on instruction with an approach to L2 writing known as controlled composition in which grammatical features were manipulated to form new sentences. Structural linguistics drew from the work of Saussure and the Russian Formalists who identified and evaluated the litera ry qualities of texts on the basis of formal elements (Gee, 1989c). Certain elements were considered evidence of oral forms and others signaled literary forms. This theory of differentiation in la nguage forms caused the st ructural linguists to sequence the teaching of oral language befo re the teaching of writing (Raimes, 1991). The theory that oral language should be le arned before writing was translated into the audio-lingual method (Fries, 1945). In hi gh school language labs, students learned to speak a second language by listening to tape s and recording responses. According to Ferris and Hedgcock (1998), controlled composition in second language writing instruction called for students to manipulate tenses and syntax in writing models in systematic ways drawn from ChomskyÂ’s (1965) theory of grammatical competence. The theory of grammatical competence account ed for the speakerÂ’s unconscious knowledge of the formal structures of the language; however, it did not account for the speakerÂ’s Â“ability to use this grammatical knowledge in real-life situationsÂ” (Johnson, 2004, p. 30). Despite the instructional l ongevity of controlled composition and the audio-lingual method, these two approaches faded from th e classroom with th e introduction of the notion of communicative co mpetence (Hymes, 1974). The notion of communicative competence (Hymes, 1974) differentiated language knowledge into two distinct areas: know ledge of rules and knowledge of the
15 appropriateness of language in various cont exts. HymesÂ’ theory involved how language occurred in the activities of learners in social contexts and their communicative competence rather than the individual mental processes of language and its grammatical competence with which Chomsky was concerned (Johnson, 2004). Communicative competence accounted for speakersÂ’ acquisiti on of language through apprenticeship in a social context, as well as their motivation to engage with other speakers (Hymes, 1974). According to Farr and Barajas (2005), Â“HymesÂ’ call four decades ago for an anthropology of language was intended to fill an importantÂ… gap between disciplinesÂ” with linguistics Â“focused on cognitive rath er than social aspects of language,Â” and anthropologyÂ’s disregard of Â“language almost entirelyÂ” (p. 20). This led to several important ethnographic studies on language so cialization (Heath, 1983; Scribner & Cole, 1981/1988; Street, 1984). According to Gee (1990/1996), language acquisition is Â“a pr ocess of acquiring something subconsciously by exposure to mode ls, a process of trial and error, and practice within social groups, without formal t eachingÂ” (p. 138). In contrast, learning is a conscious process that entails teaching th rough analysis, that is, breaking down the components of a concept or situation a nd gaining meta-knowledge (Gee, 1990/1996). Both language acquisition and language learni ng take place through activities in social contexts (Heath, 1983; Gee, 1990/1996). Summary Although some learning theorist s are left out (e.g. Piaget ), the sequence of theory development on language learning outlined in broad terms above provides some of the background knowledge, albeit very briefly, need ed to situate the current study. As this
16 general outline attempts to show, although s econd language learning differs from first language learning, they share a social asp ect, and although much is understood about the complexity of these social proc esses, there is still much to be learned about how language is learned through social interaction in classrooms. Soci al interaction in classrooms is where much of the current research is fo cused (Short, 2000; Hansen-Thomas, 2005). For example, I examined three dissertations that used case study met hodology to explore how middle school teachers promoted English langua ge learnersÂ’ (ELLs) academic discourse in three disciplinary areas: science, social studies and mathematics. Short (2000) analyzed oral interaction between sheltered science teachers and ELLs and identified discourse stra tegies and knowledge of conten t and performance strategies needed to for academic tasks. Hansen-Thomas (2005) found that standards-based instruction benefited ELLs, but the necessary math discourse was lacking in the curricula and thus the onus was placed on teac hers to isolate the target di scourse in order to teach it. Tiede (1996) used a sociocultural pers pective and found that ELLs in an 8th grade science class learned academic language through negotia tion and interaction, but that they were often restricted by the voices of others. Th ese representative studies have successfully identified discourse strategies and knowledge, and they have used theory to confirm how students appropriate academic language in the content areas. However, the research lacks a description of how literacy is promoted in middle school ELLsÂ’ language arts classrooms to improve literacy instruction.
17 Tensions in Literacy Orality Versus Literacy The first of two common te nsions in the field of lite racy has been the tension between orality and literacy. This tension was described in a seminal article by Goody and Watt (1968/1988) who sought to account for the relationship between l iteracy and thinking in literate and non-literate cultures. Goody and Watt (1968/1988) explained that one of the key limitations of non-literate societies was that in oral language there was a necessity for a direct Â“relationship between symbol and referent Â” (p. 5). This direct relationship meant that meanings of words had to be negotiated in face-to-face contexts characterized by a high degree of socializati on (Goody & Watt, 1968/1988) Goody and Watt (1968/1988) explained that in pure oral cu ltures the negotiation of meaning in local contexts often led to a profusion of vocabulary, for example multiple words for objects important in the culture. With the introduction of writing; however, the direct relationship between words and objects was altered, and wo rds and the objects they repres ented were related in an abstract way (Goody & Watt, 1968/1988). Alth ough Goody and Watt (1968/1988) rejected outright Â“differences between the mental attr ibutes of literate and non-literate peoples,Â” they made the guarded statement that, Â“there may still exist general differences between literate and non-literate socie tiesÂ” (p. 13). According to Goody and Watt (1968/1988) oral and literate cultures differed, the latter bene fiting from the cognitive consequences that were the result of the development of al phabetic writing, with one example being its emphasis on individual thought. Goody and WattÂ’s theory prompted considerable reflection and criticism. For example, Scribner a nd Cole (1981/1988) expressed concern that
18 Â“inferences about cognitive changes in individuals are shaky if they rest only on the analysis of cultural phenomena (p. 59) [ita lics in original].Â” Goody and WattÂ’s seminal article was pivotal in the development of literacy into an interdisciplinary issue. Mignolo (2003) cr edited these two author sÂ’ article with a reorientation of Â“thinking towa rd the social and political dime nsion of writing rather than to its metaphysical underpinnings (p. 321).Â” In addition, Mignolo credited the authorsÂ’ article as the source of thous ands of literacy studies. Skills Versus Practices The second common tension in the field of literacy has been the tension between individual skills and social practices. Like th e folk tale in which the blind men construed the elephant in different ways, literacy theory has many definitions that can be traced to the power held by the observers. Observers who see literacy from the vantage point of the schools believe that literacy is a collection of separate sk ills known as the autonomous model (Street, 1995). This group believes that lite racy skills are like digitally coded bits of information downloaded onto a compact di sk and, at the appropr iate time, teachers simply insert the disk into the studentsÂ’ brains and literacy skills are loaded with the click of a mouse. This Â“emphasis on the Â‘neutral ityÂ’ and Â‘autonomyÂ’ of literacyÂ” hides the power structures that all liter acy research reveals based on the researcherÂ’s reading of Â“power, authority and social diffe rentiationÂ” (Street, 1995, p. 161). However, according to Street (1995), obser vers who see literacy from the vantage point of the ideological model do not Â“deny th e technical skill or the cognitive aspects of reading and writingÂ” but see them as embedded in the social practices of diverse cultural groups Â“and within structures of powerÂ” (p. 161). Street (199 5) argued that the use of the
19 term ideological Â“signals quite explicitly that literacy practices are aspects not only of Â‘cultureÂ’ but also of pow er structuresÂ” (p. 161). Observers who see literacy from the va ntage point of the schools believe in structures of power controlled through ma instream cultural models. The mainstream represents individuals who l ook outside their immediate cont ext for Â“rules and guidance in ways of dressing, entertaining themselv es, decorating their homes, and decisionmaking in their jobsÂ” (Heath, 1983, p. 236). Acco rding to Heath (1983), these rules and guidance are thought of as normal and natural, instead of Â“learned and shared habits of a particular social groupÂ” (p.398). Literacy as social practices. According to Barton and Hamilton (1998), literacy is Â“an activity, located in the space between thought and textÂ” (p. 3). While it may be easy to think about acquiring a language as an activity, the problem is that a teacher Discourse, or Â“identity kitÂ” (Gee, 1989b), has fixed, limite d, school-based ideas about literacy, which make it difficult to separate literacy from its print-based form (Moje, 2000, p. 655). Nevertheless, literacy is a mo re complex social activity im bued with the significance and routines that we, and everyone else around us, use daily. The literacy practices of any community are associated with the individualsÂ’ beliefs about, and the meaning they draw from their environment, thus literacy practices create and are created in social and cultural contexts (Heath, 1983; Gee, 1990/1996; Scribner & Cole, 1981/1988; Street, 1984, 1995) Scribner and ColeÂ’s (1981/1988) research on the literacies of the Vai people of Liberia demonstrated that their literacy practices were discretely situated within each of their three langua ges (Vai, Arabic, and English) and that use and language of use accounted for their skill differentiation.
20 According to Scribner and Cole (1981/1988) the more widespread indigenous Vai script was transmitted informally and valued in both personal and public contexts. Although fewer people learned Arabic script than Vai script, th e Arabic script was useful in religious contexts. An even smaller portion of individuals, who were li terate in both Vai and Arabic, were also literate in English, the official literacy that was taught in school. These different literacies aros e as individuals engaged in so cial processes that reflected separate and unique contexts and meanings. Scribner and ColeÂ’s (1981/1988) measuremen t of the cognitive out comes of each of the VaiÂ’s three literacies demonstrated that literacy is important for learning as well as being an indicator of how people learn. The Va i script displayed lett ers without separating them into words, so the readerÂ’s first task was to decode individual phonemes until they became linked together to form a word. The act ivities involving Vai li teracy were learned through tutoring. On Scribner and ColeÂ’s test s of listening comprehe nsion, Vai literates tested better than Arabic lit erates. On the other hand, Arabic literates, who learned through memorization of religious texts, demonstrated improvements on memory tasks. Neither the Vai nor the Arabic literates demonstrated skills that English literates had learned in school (Scribner & Cole, 1981/1988). According to Scribner and Cole (19 81/1988), these studies offered strong evidence Â“that activities involve d in reading and writing may in fact promote specific language-processing and cognitive skillsÂ” (p. 68). Gee (1990/1996) stated that Scribner and ColeÂ’s research recognized the importance of social practices in the acquisition of literacies and added weight to the argument that Â“what matters is not literacy as some
21 decontextualized ability to wr ite or read, but the social pr actices into which people are apprenticed as part of a social groupÂ” (p. 57). Home and school language socialization. Shirley Brice HeathÂ’s (1983) seminal ethnographic study of the linguis tic differences among the peopl e of three southeastern communities in the United States showed that children acquired language through socialization, or enculturation, in their fa milies. HeathÂ’s (1983) research on language socialization found that the que stioning patterns parents used with children in the home differed from the questioning patterns their teac hers used in school and when teachers were able to change their patterns, outcomes for the children also changed. According to Gee (1989d), HeathÂ’s research implied that if culturally diverse individuals were Â“to acquire mainstream, school -based literacy practi cesÂ” they would have to repeat, Â“at an appropriate le vel for their age of course, the sorts of literacy experiences the mainstream child has had at homeÂ” (p. 58) However, as Gee (1989d) stated, schools Â“are good places to practice mainstream literacy once you have its foundations, but they are not good places to acquire those foundationsÂ” (p. 58). Gee (1989d) not ed that Heath had students study the use of language with thei r teacher, including how reading and writing was practiced in their communities as an impor tant way of apprenticing students to schoolbased literacy, the values of which Â“are in fact best exemplified in the ideology and practiceÂ…of academic workÂ” (p. 58). Summary The major theoretical tensions between or ality and literacy and home versus school language socialization have produced a si gnificant number of studies and scholarly research. The challenge of understanding the be st way to teach the English language within
22 the realm of school literacies while considering ELLsÂ’ home language environment continues to elude educators. Two recent st udies have revealed some important findings about the connection between home and school literacies. In her di ssertation, Bell (2004) conducted six case studies and presented the find ings in a verbal portrait that focused on the home and school contexts, and the voices of students and their families. One of the recurring themes that emerged in all of the ch ildrensÂ’ lives was that of a significant person who played a key role in their language learning. In her case study of a single high sch ool Latina, Reyes (2001) examined the connection between the studentÂ’s cultural practices and her school literacy practices. Four pedagogical suggestions were give n: validation of studentsÂ’ ex periences, use of culturally relevant pedagogy, issuing a cognitive challenge to ELLs, and a challenge to administrators to sponsor more teacher trai ning and mentoring of student s. These two case studies highlight key facets in the connection between home and school literacies, namely, the importance of a significant person to validate th e studentsÂ’ learning. This is pertinent to the present study because to add to our understandin gs of how ELLs engage in literacy events we must understand how they assume projectiv e identities, design their written and oral texts, and how their texts are validated. Discourse Practices Culturally Appropriate Classroom Talk Twenty-five years ago, a prevailing educa tional theory was that disadvantaged minority students lacked basic skills; however Au argued that the so cial organization of classrooms impacted the learning of minor ity children and based her belief on the competence/incompetence paradox, or the obser vation that minority children evidence a
23 high level of cognitive and linguistic competen ce in daily life, but do not reflect the same level in school (Au & Mason, 1981). In their research, Au and Jordan (1981) focused on the literacy learning of diverse students as evidenced by the types and numbers of social interactions with their teacher. Using a microethnographic approa ch, videotape data revealed detail not apparent to the classroom observer and made it available for an alysis in terms of its social organization. The teacher with low contact (LC) and th e teacher with high contact (HC) conducted their reading lessons differently, and through da ta analysis, Au and Jordan were able to show that teacher HC displayed higher leve ls of achievement-related student behavior than teacher LC. A new construct, the balance of ri ghts hypothesis, described a culturally appropriate way of speaking between teacher and students that contributed to the studentsÂ’ success in school. The teacher with high contact (HC) allowed students to speak in self-directed structures; in other words, she did not adhere to the ru le of one speaker at a time. The data showed that the teacher with low contact (LC) received little response from the students. There were numerous obs ervations of student s nodding, lowering and raising hands, but very few complete phras es. On the other hand, the teacher with high contact (HC) elicited many complete phrases from the students. Au pointed out that almost all (5 out of 6) of th e students had the opportunity to speak in a very short time, hence there was a balance, or equitable distri bution of time given to the speakersÂ’ rights. A Critical View of Child Development Research Van Kleeck (2004) described the practice of storybook sharing in parent-child dyads as part of the beliefs that constitute literacy practices in mainstream culture. In
24 mainstream middle-class culture, traditional parental values are projected into education, which includes books and other forms of prin t-based literacy. Reci procally, academic governance of childrenÂ’s lives comes from schools into homes. Mainstream literacy practices that occur in homes include the pr actice of storybook shari ng, which is believed to foster literacy growth for mainstream middle-class English-speaking students (van Kleeck, 2004). While van Kleeck (2004) ackno wledged the variety of ideological perspectives among scholars re garding home book-sharing practi ces, she also argued that there is a Â“tendency in child development re search to treat mainstream socialization practices as normative and prefe rredÂ” (p. 176). In this case, despite the variation in booksharing practices, the practice itself is take n up as an unquestioned be neficial ritual of Â“good parenting.Â” In van KleeckÂ’s (2004) view beliefs and values vary among cultures and Â“the value of literacy depends on the purposes it serves within a particular societyÂ” (p. 179). The Literacy Myth According to Graff (1982/1988) literacyÂ’s connection to theo ries of social development and individual advancement has constituted Â“a literacy mythÂ” which has proved to be insufficient in explaining Â“the place of literacy in societyÂ” (p. 82). As Graff (1982/1988) noted, literacy has of ten been viewed as Â“repre sentative of attitudes and mentalitiesÂ” (p. 83). For example, religious attitudes sustained SwedenÂ’s dramatic literacy rate increase during the 17th century (Graff, 1982/198 8; Kaestle, 1985/1988). According to Kaestle (1985/1988), spurred on by church-sponsored laws and without significant school input, the Swedish literacy rate grew from 35% in 1660 to 90% in 1720. According to Gee (1989e), the Swedish literacy program Â“was based not just on
25 compulsion, but onÂ…a need internalized in villa ge reading and family prayersÂ” (p. 155). As Gee (1989e) noted, while the law prescribed how the text was to be read, writing was not part of the lawÂ’s requirement, wh ich impeded the valu e of the literacy. According to Gee (1989e), the case of Sw eden was the historical parallel of Scribner and ColeÂ’s psychological research on the Vai, which demonstrated schoolingÂ’s lack of measurable cognitive effects outside of contexts in which such practices are rewarded. The importance of Scribner and Co lesÂ’ research, Gee suggested, was that it proved that schooling results in particular skills, which are of no use when taken out of the contexts in which they are practiced. Lite racy is meaningless as an abstract set of skills, Graff (1982/1988) asserted, without the meaning given to it in practice by its users and applied in Â“specific material and cultural contextsÂ” (p. 83). According to Gee (1989e), GraffÂ’s work was noteworthy for tracing how literacy has been used throughout history in various contexts to reinforce the social order, empower the privileged, and as a means of c ontrol. Literacy is used to control, Gee stated, but it can also be used to liberate. As examples of the latter, Gee (1989e) cited the emancipatory literacy of Paulo Friere (1970/ 2003) and the work of Bakhtin (1986). GeeÂ’s (1990/1996) theory of Discourses also functions in this way. Â“Apart from Discourses,Â” Gee stated, Â“language and literacy are meaninglessÂ” (p. 190). GeeÂ’s Theory of Discourses As Gee (1989b) defined it, discourse w ith a lower case Â‘dÂ’ means ordinary Â“connected stretches of language that make senseÂ” (p.6). To emphasize the interrelatedness of language and human activity, Gee (1989b) used the same word, Discourses with an upper case Â‘D Â’, to indicate the identity gear that individuals embody
26 in their manner of thinking, acting, feeling, believing, and dressing. Through this identity gear, individuals are able to distinguish ot hers as embodying a part icular Discourse, or identity. Gee (1989b) described a Discourse as an Â“identity kitÂ” that Â“comes complete with the appropriate costume and instructions on how to act, talk, and often write, so as to take on a particular role that others will recognizeÂ” (p. 7). All individuals have a primary Discourse acquired within their family, whereas secondary Discourses are acquired outside of the home (Gee, 1990/1996). Secondary Discourses are acquired through th e apprenticeships people have within their occupations or social class, and the various aspects of th ese secondary Discourses signal to others the specific Â“identity kitÂ” that the indivi duals embody (Gee, 1989b). As Gee (1999) noted, Discourses are always changing and, at any point in time, several secondary Discourses are in progress, or becoming. Individuals can, in theory, acquire several secondary Discourses during their lifetimes and their Â‘core identitiesÂ’ are the histories of their involvement with a variety of groups (Gee, 1999). Meta-level knowledge is learned GeeÂ’s notion of Discour ses applies to every social act in peopleÂ’s lives including literacy. According to Gee (1989d), Â“literacy is seen as a set of discourse practices, that is, as ways of using language and making sense both in speech and writingÂ” (p. 39). Gee (1990/1996) defined literacy as Â“the mastery of a secondary DiscourseÂ” (p. 143). Because ther e are innumerable secondary Discourses, Gee asserted, Â“literacy is always pluralÂ” (p. 143). According to Gee, in order to critique a Discourse, individuals must ha ve acquired at least two Disc ourses, and they must have learned, not acquired, Â“meta-le vel knowledge about both Disc oursesÂ” (p. 145). According to Gee, meta-level knowledge is learned through teaching, which entails analyzing the
27 item under study so that students are able to discuss and explain it. However, Gee (1990/1996) reminded us that not only is teach ing defined differently in some cultures, but also in our own schools te aching in practice does not al ways follow this description and entail studentsÂ’ practice in discussing and explaini ng meta-level knowledge. Discourses and culture. Through culture, individu als add their ideas and meanings to their environment (Lankshear, 1997). For example, as we listen to a surferÂ’s explanation of how he is able to Â‘readÂ’ th e ocean, the wind, and the waves; how nature consists of signs in which he Â‘readsÂ’ meani ngs, we recognize that his Discourse allows him to draw these meanings from his envir onment. Lankshear (1997) observed that there is a Â“relationship between cu lture, as addition to the worl d, and Discourse. Discourses are about making meaningÂ” (p. 16). Making meani ng is an activity embedded within social events. In the surferÂ’s social experience, he acquires specific ideas, beliefs, laws, and assumptions about the world. His way of th inking about his body and ability, the ocean and his relationship to it, as well as his achievements riding th e waves is an example of a Discourse. As Lankshear (1997) explained, Â“through Discourse s human life is organized into shape and form which can be recognized and understood-it can be Â‘readÂ’ as having Â‘meaningÂ’-by ourselves and by othersÂ” (p. 16). Discourses and literacies GeeÂ’s (1990/1996) notion of Discourses applies to every social act in peopleÂ’s lives including the social groups in schools. Discourses emerge from the affiliations people have, such as work, social class, recreational, or special interest, to name just a few. A cl assroom has a minimum of three Discourses in use: the Discourse of the di scipline, the classroom Disc ourse, and the students and teacherÂ’s social Discourses (Moje, Coll azo, Carrillo, & Marx, 2001). The classroom
28 Discourse emerges out of the ideas teacher s and students have about what constitutes knowledge in the particular discipline of th e classroom. The social Discourses are the ways of thinking, acting, feeling, believi ng, and dressing that people acquire through membership in their families and communities (Gee, 1990/1996). Instructional Discourses involve the language of the subject, or discipline, for example, when and how to ask or answer questions, and what resource s to use and how to use them (Moje et al, 2001). Summary The preceding section presented a review of several key theories that have important implications in the present study be cause they all speak to the issues of literacy, culture, and power. Au found that negotiating power in the classroom through culturally appropriate ways of speaking betw een teacher and students contributed to the studentsÂ’ success in school. Th ere is more to be learned by considering the question of how power is equitably divided in among those in classrooms or after-school programs so that all participantsÂ’ rights to speak are validated. Van Kleeck provided an important reminder that the value literacy holds differs among cultures and depends to a large extent on the purposes literacy fulfills in the particular culture. The purpose for engagi ng in literacy practi ces was explored by Rubinstein-Avila (2001) in he r dissertation. First, she condu cted a survey of over two hundred adolescent ELLs to determine their repo rted literacy practices. She followed that with interviews of four students and f ound that the students had three purposes for engaging in literacy practices: entertainm ent, obtaining information, and practicing English. Multiple regression analysis revealed two predictors of varied literacy practices:
29 motherÂ’s educational level and studentsÂ’ beli efs about their Englis h ability. In addition, the research concluded that ELLs had limited access to school li teracies and that this lack of opportunity necessitate d further research. The purpose of this case study was to unders tand the literacy events in which the students participated in an after-school program to find out if their access to participation was limited, and if the context allowed them access to school literacies. A Critical Look at Literacy as Social Practices Literacy as social practi ce challenges the theory that literacy is a context-free technology housed in a Â“set of skillsÂ” that transforms human lear ning and culture (Gee, 1990/1996, Street, 1984, 1995). Looking at mainst ream book sharing practices through the lens of the social practice paradigm, read ing and writing are seen as contextualized cultural practices acquired as part of our primary Disc ourses (Gee, 1990/1996). However, in a critical analysis of the literacy as social practices m odel, Brandt and Clinton (2002) argued that the model is Â“undertheorizedÂ” and li mited in its ab ility to explain how literacy operates in specific contexts. They contende d that contextualizing literacy overstates cultural groupsÂ’ control over th e meaning and shape that their literacy practices take. Researchers who take the approach of literacy as social practices know that it is based on observation, and as such, it tells what, but does not research why. Brandt and Clinton considered the possibili ty that literacy not only originates in local interactions, but also Â“ar rives from other placesÂ” (p. 343). One example of this kind of literacy, the researchers explained, was in BesnierÂ’s (1995) ethnography on the Nukulaelae people of Polynesia who adopted th e practice of letter writing and sermons they had learned from colonial travelers to the island. Besnier (1995) observed mature
30 women wearing shirts imprinted with off-color sayings that were imported to the island from Westernized urban centers. Besnier note d that the sayings ha d no relevancy to the people and were not featured in any of their lite racy events. According to Brandt and Clinton (2002), Â“t he presence of print can indicate the presence of somebody elseÂ’s meanings Â– in this case, the slogans refer to the reach of a global market economy into family gift-givi ngÂ” (p. 344). As Brandt and Clinton stated, just as the people pay no heed to the prin t, Â“the print ignores the Nukulaelae peopleÂ…yet it incorporates them into Western commercialism in an intimate wayÂ” (p. 344). The researchers concluded that the Â“material form s,Â” the Â“technologies of literacyÂ” have the ability to travel and to create meaning outside of immediate literacy events. To relate a personal anecdote that is probably familiar to many second language teachers, I was teaching Asian newcomers to the U.S. one Christmas season in Philadelphia and one newcomer gave me a car d that read Â“Merry Christmas, Mom and Dad.Â” Although the print on the card was appr eciated as a design element and a positive sentiment, it was not recognized as a message derived from analysis. However, if the print on the card were interpreted as literacy in action, we would say that it demonstrated the power of business to incor porate the student into Wester n commercial culture and Â“do somethingÂ” with him even though he did not ce lebrate this holiday in his culture. Brandt and Clinton (2002) called this, Â“figuring out what things are doing with people in a settingÂ” (p. 349). Brandt and Clinton (2002) contended th at, Â“figuring out wh at things are doing with people in a setting become s as important as figuring out what people are doing with things. According to Latour (1993), the Â“myth of the soulless, agen tless bureaucracy, like
31 that of the pure and perfect marketplace, offe rs the mirror-image of the myth of universal scientific lawsÂ” (p. 121). The myth of th e bureaucracy can be dissolved through the realization that Â“if we wander about inside IBMÂ…if we study the process of selling and buying a bar of soap, we never leave the lo cal levelÂ” (p. 121). According to Latour (1993), the connecting link is Â“the thread of networks of pr actices and instruments, of documents and translationsÂ” (p. 121). Literacy in Action Brandt and Clinton (2002) proposed excha nging the literacy ev ent as the unit of analysis for literacy-in-action. A study of lite racy-in-action would tr ace the history of objects in a setting to see if the actors in the context adopt ed them or not. Brandt and Clinton proposed that they could also study th e role of objects in Â“f raming the interaction and figure out the social load, so to speak, th at they carry in the settingÂ” (p. 349). The researchers stated that such an analysis would be achieved by following the Â“processes by which these things link the setting to other places-how they deliver meanings from other places and transform local acti ons into meanings bound for or relevant to other placesÂ” (p. 349). Cowan (2003) did this when he f ound that the images of the Virgin of Guadalupe linked Latinos in the Bayside, Ca lifornia community and linked the members of the Latino community in Bayside to their heritage in Mexico. Literacy Sponsors According to Brandt and Clinton (2002), Â“the concept of th e literacy sponsor recognizes the historical fact that access to literacy ha s always required assistance, permission, sanction, or coer cion by more powerful others Â” (p. 349). Objects act as substitutes for the interests of others w ho are not on the scene and following how the
32 objects and who is interested in them are linked permits us to carefully map out the inequitable power Â“flowing through literacy practicesÂ” (Brandt & Clinton, 2002). For example, a standardized test document acts as a proxy for the interests of the mainstream. The researchers stated that through mappi ng, it would be possible to address the Â‘autonomousÂ’ aspects of literacy whil e avoiding the autonomous model. Cowan (2003) used both literacy-in-action a nd the literacy event as his units of analysis to study the meanings of the images in Latino lowrider art and to study how both the meanings and the images were transcul turated (Cowan, 2003), that is, the images moved and new meanings were added to them in their new contexts. According to Cowan (2005), the term Â“transculturationÂ” created Â“by Cuban sociologist Fernando Ortiz (1940/1995), is set in counterpoint to assi milation, the dominant model of cultural integrationÂ” (p. 151). In a ddition, by investigating the meanings and objects, Cowan learned about the social practices in which the drawings were made and shared. In his conclusion, Cowan (2003) wondered, Â“what ot her connections between Latino visual discourse and school-based literacy might i nnovative teachers be using, or be able to dream up, if Latino visual discourse were recogn ized as a significant, culturally valued system of literacy?Â” (p. 347). Extending Social Practice s In order to talk about l iteracy-in-action, Latour (1996) invented three key terms that expand the notion of literacy as a social practice (Brandt & C linton, 2002). The first term, localizing moves, is defined as Â“acti ons of humans and things in framing or partitioning particular interactionsÂ” (p.351). An example of localizing moves would be the practice of book sharing. Brandt and Clint on noted that literacy objects Â“localize a
33 context by framing it and holding it in placeÂ” (p. 351). These literacy objects are what Street (2005b) called Â“cultural ar tifacts,Â” which are either r eal or conceptual, and given meaning by cultural groups. As Cowan (2003) di scovered, cultural artifacts, such as the image of the Virgin of Guadalupe, which or iginated in Mexico, were given meanings there, and when the images were transcu lturated, they were given new meanings associated with the local context. The literacy objects drawn by the La tino lowrider artists Â“localizedÂ” the context by holding the individua ls in place with a sense of solidity and permanence that implies Â“no confusion a bout whatÂ…you are doingÂ” (Brandt & Clinton, 2002, p. 345). CowanÂ’s (2003) research linked the literacies in Latino lowrider art to the historical investments layered with meaning with the result that the cultural artifacts assumed a magnified form larger than the people themselves. Like his first term, LatourÂ’s (1996) sec ond term, Â“globalizingÂ” can also refer to actions of humans and objects (Brandt & Clinton, 2002). Latour (1996) defined globalizing as Â“the shifting out of individuals as well as the knitting together of interactionsÂ” (p. 351). According to Brandt and Clinton, Â“globalizingÂ” occurs when people Â“shift out of local scenes of read ing and writing in ma ny different ways-for instance, by joining abstract constituencies or categorie sÂ” (p.351). These groups, or constituencies could be quilting or bridge clubs, or Internet blogs. In CowanÂ’s (2003) study, the image of the Virgin of Guadalupe, originated in Mexico and traveled to California and, in the process of transculturation, took on ne w meanings that could be read only by the people in the new context. LatourÂ’s (1996) third term is called Â“folding inÂ” and conveys the ontological relationship, or the existen ce of Â“relationships between people and thingsÂ” (p. 353).
34 Brandt and Clinton (2002) used the example of the research journal to illustrate the concept of Â“folding in.Â” Authors of research articles fold themselves into a journal and other people read their article while the aut hors are occupied in ot her endeavors (Brandt & Clinton, 2002). The same concept applies in art, or other modes of expression. Brandt and Clinton noted that human activities empl oy the Â“technologies of literacyÂ” to Â“delocalizeÂ” or globalize meaning, and by doing so, they award liter acy the position of power to those who display control over it. Summary The concept of the literacy sponsor is what Cowan (2003) and Grady (2002) discussed in their research. In their research, both Cowa n and Grady found that literacy sponsors provided access to literacy in terms of assistance and contact with communication networks. Cowan found that the lowrider ar t magazine was a visual literacy sponsor and Grady found that Latino artists had roles as sponsors of visual discourse. Visual Discourse Valuing Non-mainstream Literacy Practices Even though the literacy practices of every culture involves making meaning, some practices are thought of as more valuab le and are given more status than others (Cowan, 2003; Lankshear, 1997). Cowan (2003) de scribed how the visual discourse of Latino adolescents allowed them to take meaning from their environment and produce artwork that functioned as cultu ral artifacts with important meanings for the members of the community.
35 According to Cowan (2003), his research made a significant statement through its refusal to Â‘succumbÂ’ to the notion that some cultural creations can be dismissed because they reflect non-mainstream practices. Moreover, he asserted that his research Â“elevates adolescent artwork as an equally worthy s ubject of study as those other mainstream practices of visual literac y. (p. 339). The following is a review of the theoretical background that situates CowanÂ’s study of th e meanings of Latino visual discourse. A Diversity of Choices Â“Grammar needs to be seen as a ra nge of choices one makes in designing communication for specific ends, including gr eater recruitment of nonverbal featuresÂ” (New London Group, 1996, p. 79). Saussure anal yzed grammar in written text and evaluated the literary qualities of texts iden tifying certain structures as oral forms and others as literary forms (Gee, 1989c). Accord ing to sociolinguistic theory, language (one of many sign systems) fulfills communicati on needs by providing a range of meaning choices based on a particular context (Halli day, 1978). According to Halliday (1978), the meaning of a text cannot be Â‘decontextualize d,Â’ that is, it cannot exist apart from its surroundings. To analyze texts necessitated th e development of a grammar to define how the parts work together to compose the m eaning taken from the social context. Halliday and Hasan (1989) defined the gramma tical features of the social context as field, tenor, and mode. Field is the form of action, or even t, for example an anthropology class, or a baseball game. Tenor has two meanings, the first is a role associated with social behavior, such as the role of a doctor, or a police officer. The second meaning of tenor is a role associated with the language, for example, the roles of intervie wer, or interviewee.
36 Mode is associated with the genre, or form s a text takes on to pe rform specific textual functions, such as expository, pe rsuasive, or descriptive. These three features are expressed thr ough language functions: field is expressed through the experiential function; tenor is expressed through th e interpersonal function; and mode is expressed through the textual functi on. In this social linguistic framework, the elements of texts cater to the needs of cont ext and therefore genres have specific social functions within cultures. The grammar of wr itten texts outlined by Saussure and Halliday and Hasan formed the basis of the New Visual Literacy (Kress and van Leeuwan, 1996) that Cowan used in his dissertation to anal yze the features of La tino visual discourse. The New Visual Literacy The new visual literacy (Kress and van Leeuwen, 1996), based on HallidayÂ’s (1978) theory of sociolinguistics, explains how the components of visual design work together as the elements of grammar in language to create meaningful themes. In constructing a theory of the new visual literacy, Kress and va n Leeuwen (1996) borrowed HallidayÂ’s three functions of language to create three metafunctions of visual literacy: the id eational, the interpersonal, and the textual metafunctions. The ideational metafunction concerns how the sign system in illustrations stands for the worl d of ideas as distinct from the artist. The interpersonal metafunction represents the inte raction between the observer and the image. The textual metafunction illustrates how the sign system creates complex, coherent visual texts that match the context in which they were created. Visual Discourse Practices Among Latino/a Youth Teachers who have Latino/a students in th eir classes are likely to observe unique artwork and drawing practices in their classrooms; however, they may not know that the
37 images in the drawings have important cultural meanings (G rady, 2002; Cowan, 2003). Moreover, not only the images, but also the so cial practices in which these images are created and shared broaden the notions we have about ELLsÂ’ literacies (Moje, 2000; Cowan, 2003; Grady, 2002; Weinstein, 2002). In his dissertation, Cowan (2003) used Kr ess and van LeeuwenÂ’s (1996) theory of new visual literacy to analyze the images in the artwork of Latino adolescents. Kress and van LeeuwenÂ’s (1996) three metafunctions ar e the textual metafunction, the ideational metafunction, and the interper sonal metafunction. Cowan (2003) described Kress and van LeeuwenÂ’s (1996) ideational metafunction as Â“h ow the sign system represents the world around usÂ” (p. 110). The interpersonal metaf unction describes Â“how the grammar of visual design creates patterns Â” (p. 110). And the textual me tafunction describes Â“how the sign system has to have the capac ity to form textsÂ” (p. 110). Cowan (2003) argued that these three meta functions, while helpful for describing mainstream codes of visual communicati on, were unsatisfactory for explaining other systems of visual literacy like the images drawn by the students in the Hispanic afterschool program. Therefore, he had to expand Kress and van LeeuwenÂ’s (1996) metafunctions. Kress and van LeeuwenÂ’ s (1996) ideational metafunction became CowanÂ’s (2003) intertextual feature. Kre ss and van LeeuwenÂ’s (1996) interpersonal metafunction became CowanÂ’s (2003) social feature. And Kress and van LeeuwenÂ’s (1996) textual metafunction became Cowa nÂ’s (2003) contextual feature. As a result of CowanÂ’s (2003) expansion of Kress and van LeeuwenÂ’s theory, he discovered the existence of a Â“system of vi sual literacy distinct from but operating parallel to Western visual de signÂ” (p. 338). He concluded that the social practices that
38 gave birth to the artwork as well as how the art functioned in adoles cent groups to be as significant as the symbols and meanings of the artwork themselves. Similarly, in her study of Latino artwork, Grady (2002) focused on the studentsÂ’ social interaction as they engaged in drawing activities and found that the students assumed three interdependent social roles in connection with their drawings : Â“artist, consumer, and artifact bearerÂ” (p. 181). Both researchers found that students shared beliefs and practices around their drawings, but that many of the beliefs and practices were guarded from outsiders (Grady, 2002; Cowan, 2003). For example, Cowan (2003) as ked one of the artists to explain her drawing, but she refused. Cowan (2003) stated that systems of visu al literacy account fo r the social context in which they exist, their history, and the effect of transcultu ration (Ortiz, 1940/1995), a process in which a cultural icon changes in form and meaning as it moves from one community to another. When literacy is viewed as situated in the social context, that view may entail being critical of the power stru cture in the social context (Fairclough, 1989). In CowanÂ’s (2003) view, Â“doing colonial semios is to speak the present means how, in the postmodern/postcolonial period of globaliz ation autonomous models of alphabetic literacy continue the spread of Western pract ices of literacy rendering other practices subaltern by making them appear pr imitive and inferiorÂ” (p. 198-199). In his study, Cowan (2003) did Â“col onial semiosisÂ” (Mignolo, 1995/2003), the purpose of which was to contest the views that cause particular literate practices to be regarded as substandard. Similarly, in his co lonial semiosis, Mignolo (2003) stated his intention to study Â“the relationship betw een discourse and power during colonial expansionÂ” (p. 7). As Mignolo ( 2003) stated, colonial discourse, or colonial semiosis is
39 meant to show Â“a change in our understandi ng of the construction of a New World during the sixteenth century,Â” one that repositioned the European center creating a new Â“perspective in which the darker side of the Renaissance is brought into light and a change of voice in which the European Rena issance is looked at from the colonial peripheryÂ” (p. 8). FoucaultÂ’s (1977) approach to understandi ng how knowledge is created in social interaction, called Â“decentering the subject,Â” suggests a method to show how the subject is constructed by systems of ideas that li nk power and knowledge. According to Siegel and Fernandez (2000), Foucault Â“called these sy stems of ideas discoursesÂ” and studied Â“how discourses, as historic al practices, construct object sÂ…both across disciplinary boundaries and within material practices ac ross social locationsÂ” (p. 148). However, Mignolo (2003) argued that FoucaultÂ’s Â“loc us of enunciationÂ…was mainly concerned with the disciplinary and inst itutional grounding of discursive formations and gave less attention to the personal hist ory of the understanding subj ectÂ” (p. 5). Mignolo (2003) asserted that Â“from the perspe ctive of locus of enunciation, understanding the past cannot be detached from speaking the present, ju st as the disciplinar y (or epistemological) subject cannot be detached from the nondiscip linary (or hermeneutical) oneÂ” (pp. 5-6). According to Mignolo (2003), colonial di scourse sets Â“colonial discursive production in a context of c onflictive interactionsÂ” (p. 7) Mignolo (2003) proposed that there is the need for methods that emphasize Â“events and cultural artifacts in themselves as well as on the discourses by which events and artifacts are conceptualized from within and outside a given communityÂ” (p. 9). Wh ile Mignolo examined ancient Amerindian texts, Cowan investigated current Latino lowr ider art. In CowanÂ’ s (2003) research, the
40 Virgin of Guadalupe, an important religious ic on in Mexico, went through the process of transculturation when it moved into communitie s in the United States and became part of the iconography of lowrider art. In this process of transcu lturation, the icon assumed new meanings that can be read by initiates into the culture when they observe the images, become curious about their meanings, and le arn about their signifi cance (Cowan, 2003). CowanÂ’s pioneering study paves the way for more studies using Kress and van LeeuwenÂ’s (1996) new visual lite racy and invites further resear ch into the promising area of culturally diverse studentsÂ’ visual disc ourse and multimodal texts. Cowan identified the lowrider artwork as Latino, a term that he defined as embracing, Â“native Spanish, native Portuguese and native En glish speakers, foreign born, U.S. born, and those whose families never crossed over a border but, rather, experienced the border crossing over them as a result of 19th century U.S. imperial expansionÂ” (Cowan, 2003, p. 9). In his study, Cowan described drawings th at were unique to the Lati nos in Bayside, California; however, Latinos from regions such as the Caribbean and South America draw different images. For example, the student from Puerto Rico, who conceptualized the flag as billowing in the wind, painted a large image of the coqui-a frog native to the island and a cultural icon for the Puerto Rican people. He painted the coqui brow n, and on its back he painted the Puerto Rican flag. Summary The studies on visual discourse practi ces among Latino youth have demonstrated the complexity of the practices and meanings associated with non-mainstream literacies. This research has illuminated how the particip ants project themselves into the icons to create new drawings, and other participants recognize and interpret their meanings. These
41 studies have shown that through the processe s of participation a nd reification the youth translated their experiences into meani ng in the creation of artifacts. As Cowan demonstrated, the various illustrations with their different meanings in multiple contexts reflect the persistence of reification outside of school. However, there is much more to be learned about how ELLs take on literate iden tities in after-school contexts through productions that benefit from participation and reification. Identity Theory and L2 Learning According to Mansfield (2000), the Enlight enment way of thinking envisioned the subject as created by Nature to be Â“a free, autonomous and rationa l beingÂ” (Mansfield, 2000, p. 13). However, Foucault (1984) argued that the Enlightenme nt myth of the autonomous individual hid power. Rather, Fou cault (1984) argued, power appears first, and is accepted because Â“it traverses and pr oduces things, it induces pleasure, forms knowledge, [and] produces discourse. Power, acco rding to Foucault, needs to be considered as a Â“productive network which runs th rough the whole social bodyÂ” (p. 61). Cultural identity is Â“the personÂ’s sense of what constitutes membership in an ethnic group to which he or she belongsÂ” (Ferdma n, 1990, p. 192). Accordi ng to Ferdman (1990) Â“how a personÂ’s identity as a member of an ethnocultural gr oup is intertwined with the meaning and consequences of becoming and being literateÂ” (p. 182). He argued that literacy and cultural identity exist in an inve rse relationship and that cultural identity influences what students learn and how students acquire their l iterate identities, which then transforms their Â“perceptions of themselves in relationship to their ethnic group and the larger societyÂ” (Ferdman, 1990, p. 201). Ferdma n (1990) concluded that teachersÂ’ primary mission is to encourage studentsÂ’ prid e in their cultural identities.
42 According to Cummins (1986), Â“although con ceptually the cognitive/academic and social/emotional (identity related) factors ar e distinct, the data s uggest that they are extremely difficult to separate in the case of minority studentsÂ” (p. 23). Learning and becoming literate are woven into the process of constructing and repr esenting an identity (McCarthey & Moje, 2002; Ibrahim, 1999; No rton-Peirce, 1995). According to Ibrahim (1999), learning is seen as Â“an engagement of oneÂ’s identity, a fulfillm ent of personal needs and desires (of being), and an investment in what is yet to comeÂ” (p. 366). Norton-Peirce (1995) emphasized the dynamic nature of the learnerÂ’s identity, a nd noted that ELLs are multifaceted beings and that Â“the individua l language learner is not ahistorical and unidimensional, but has a complex and someti mes contradictory social identity, changing across time and spaceÂ” (p. 26). Although FindersÂ’ (1996) ethnography did not include ELLs, it did explore 7th grade adolescent girlsÂ’ literacies and negotia tions of group norms in school. Finders argued that to understand the learner, one must exam ine the context in which the learner exists. She found that the girls both complied with a nd resisted school demands and that their literate performances in the classroom were affe cted by the school context as well as social affiliation. Finders concluded that rather than considering classrooms as neutral spaces for learning, Â“it would be more productive to openly articulate the complexities and consequences that accompany li teracy learningÂ” (p. 126). Identity is a product of the experiences that engage learners in th e social practices in their classroom communities (Ibrah im, 1999; Norton-Peir ce, 1995; Broughton & Fairbanks, 2003; Vyas, 2004; Ybarra, 2004; Lam, 2000; Kanno, 2003). Research has shown that if a studentÂ’s cultural identity is ignored in school, her investment in learning
43 English is likely to be low (Ferdman, 1990; Finders, 1997; McKay & Wong, 1996; Cowan, 2003; Norton-Peirce, 1995; Ibrahim, 1999). In addition, learnersÂ’ symbolic or material investments are directly connected to the c ontinuing creation of th eir social identities (Cowan, 2003; Grady, 2002; Ibrahim, 1999; Moje, 2000). Ibrahim (1999) found that the immigrant African studentsÂ’ language demonstrated code switching and assimilation of specific words, while focus groups revealed that they were also impacted by popular culture and sports. In mainstream classrooms, culturally a nd linguistically dive rse adolescents are expected to adapt to a narrow range of main stream literacy practices (King & OÂ’Brien, 2002; Willis, 1995; Ybarra, 2004). Moreover, teachi ng reading and writing to linguistically and culturally diverse students i nvolves more than print-based sk ills, it is seen as a Â“hostile attemptÂ” to change studentsÂ’ cultural identitie s (Ybarra, 2004). This of ten results in anxiety or refusal to participate, which is perceived as failure to acquire sc hool literacy practices (Willis, 1995; McCarthey, 2001). When she noticed her sonÂ’s anxiety about his classmatesÂ’ scrutiny of his writing, Willis (1995) called it Â“the subtle, yet ever-present and unquestioned role of cultural accommodation that occurs in the school literacy experience of children from diverse backgroundsÂ” (Willis, 1995, p. 32). Citing the research of Delpit (1988) and Heath (1983), Willis (1995) ar gued that these researchers have voiced Â“concerns about the narrowly defined cultu re of acceptable school literacyÂ” (p. 33). McCarthey (2001) studied 12 di verse fifth gradersÂ’ views of their reading abilities, as well as the views of others who were influe ntial in their literacy development, namely parents, teacher, and peers. McCarthey (2001) explored to what extent a color-coded reading curriculum shaped the studentsÂ’ ident ities. The results revealed that half of the
44 students had Â‘coherentÂ’ identities, that is, they were confiden t and self-assured about their literacy behaviors. The remaining students had less Â‘coherentÂ’ iden tities and were not conscious of the views others had of them (McCarthey, 2001). McCarthey (2001) reasoned that the disparity in other pe opleÂ’s judgments of the student s had to do with Â“studentsÂ’ awareness of how others might talk about themÂ” (p. 143). McCarthey (2001) disparaged the custom of identifying stude nts by color-coded reading groups because it limited their view of reading and because the goal of good teaching is to align studentsÂ’ literate identitie s with their cultural identities. The alignment of studentsÂ’ literate identiti es and cultural identities can be accomplished through the practices of culturally responsive teaching (Au, 1993; Gay, 2002; La dson-Billings, 1995) and a framework for teachers offered by the continua model of biliteracy (Hornberger and Skilton-Sylvester, 2000). Identity and Literacy in an On-line Context Research has begun to examine the relati onship between identity and literacy in on-line contexts (Albright, Pruohit, & Walsh, 2002; Lankshear & Knobel, 2002; Gee, 2004; Lam, 2000). Technology teaches users sign ificant lessons about how to transform an identity on the screen (Gee, 2004; La m, 2000). In a case study of an adolescentÂ’s literacy practices and identity in a comput er-mediated communication (CMC) context, Lam (2000) investigated a Chinese studentÂ’s li teracy practices in on-line chat files, email, and communications on his home page to understand how these exchanges fostered his L2 literacy acquisition. In this stu dy, Lam examined the studentÂ’s genres and discourses to see how the student constructed his identity while involved in a CMC. Lam collected data in the form of observations, in terviews, and texts from the studentÂ’s on-line
45 chat files, e-mail, and communications on hi s home page. LamÂ’s conclusion was that the CMC fostered group connections, which led her to suggest that they are promising for the development of shared endeavors to support students Â’ literacies. In GeeÂ’s (2004) analysis of LamÂ’s st udy, he noted that the CMC benefited the student because it provided him with a community that shared his be liefs and valued his participation. Because of these shared beliefs, the student made investments in literacy and appropriated the views of the individuals with whom he communicated. In addition, his newfound agency and literacy practices helped him kick off plans for future learning. The CMC experience for this student suggested that it may help students acquire new literacy practices as well as new Discourses as writers. Gee (2004) not ed that the student has learned Â“to think of himself in entrep reneurial termsÂ” empowered by his sense of agencyÂ” (p. 294). In addition, the social elem ents of literacy learning enable ELLs to experiment with on-line comm unication (Black, 2005, Lam, 2000). An Untapped Power Technology has enormous power to disso lve Discourse boundaries (Gee, 2004; Lam, 2000; Albright, Pruohit, & Walsh, 2002) as well as raise questions for education (Albright, Pruohit and Walsh, 2002; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). In a study of the use of on-line chat rooms in interdisciplinary clas sroom contexts in middle school, a number of these important questions were raised (Albri ght, Pruohit and Walsh, 2002). Albright et al (2002) noted that technology has challenged te achers, researchers, and theorists alike Â“to appreciate and contend withÂ” th e array of new texts and possi ble meanings for textsÂ” (p. 702). In addition, Albright et al (2002) voiced concerns about whether educators will be
46 able to sustain relevancy of the curriculum in the face of studentsÂ’ power to control their own learning. In their study, Albright et al (2002) found that the stude ntsÂ’ expressed frustration with the turn taking on-line a nd blamed their inability to fi nd answers to their questions on the free-flow of turn taking. Even more te lling, the researchers found that the students did not take on projective identiti es as scientists. Gee (2004) a sserted that, Â“if learners in classroomsÂ…take on a projective identityÂ…it be comes one of their real world identitiesÂ” (p. 302). However, the students in the study by Albright et al (2002) did not do so, suggesting that the skills mode l of literacy restricts taking on projective identities and that in such contexts, even with technology, Â“there are no degrees of freedom for the projective identity to take wingÂ” (Gee, 2004, p. 303). Similarly, Warshauer, Knobel, and Stone (2004) found that there was a regular pattern of pe rformativity involved in studentsÂ’ use of technology with instructiona l emphasis on mastery of hardware rather than on learning outcomes. Summary Identity is the product of studentsÂ’ so cial interactions w ithin the classroom (Norton-Peirce, 1995). Furthermore, if the student Â’s cultural identity is ignored in school, investment in learning English is likely to be low (Finders, 1997; McKay & Wong, 1996). On the other hand, in a computer-m ediated communication (CMC) context, Lam (2000) found that a Chinese studentÂ’s liter acy practices fostered his L2 literacy acquisition and accrued positive benefits in the formation of his identity because it provided him with a community that shared his beliefs and validated his participation. As a result of projecting himself into the computer-mediated world, the student made
47 investments in literacy and assumed a literate identity and encouraged his plans for future learning. In the CMC, the stude nt exercised choice to partic ipate in a community that validated his literacies, whereas in the classroom, students do not have much choice about the makeup of the classroom community. Th e current research is interested in how this difficulty is bridged to allow ELLs to take on literate identities. A Pedagogy of Pluralism As Surez-Orozco (2001) stated, immigrati on in the United States rose by thirty percent during the 1990s, and it was during the same decade that a group of researchers known as the New London Group (1996) met to discuss the intersection between the shifting social context of schools and a ne w approach to teaching literacy called Â“multiliteracies.Â” The groupÂ’s purpose was to reach new understandings about the requirements of literacy pedagogy given th e exclusion of many students from the technological benefits accrued to those whose education and tr aining allows them to gain access to lucrative jobs (New London Group, 1996). The groupÂ’s agenda was to provi de a view of Â“the current social context of learning and the consequences of social changes on th e substance and shape of literacy pedagogyÂ” (New London Group, 1996, p. 63). The groupÂ’s discus sions centered on two major issues: first, Â“the increasing multiplicity and integr ation of significant modes of meaning-making, where the textual is also related to the visual the audio, the spatial, the behavioral,Â” and second, Â“multiliteracies as a way to focus on th e realities of increasi ng local diversity and global connectednessÂ” (p. 64). Th e first issue is associated with KressÂ’s (2003) notion of Â“literacy and multimodalityÂ” and the second issue relates to cultural diversityÂ’s mandate that in peopleÂ’s work they must Â“interact effectively using multiple languages, multiple
48 Englishes, and communication patterns that mo re frequently cross cultural, community, and national boundariesÂ” (p. 64). The New London GroupÂ’s (1996) project wa s to design a new curriculum for a Â“pedagogy of multiliteraciesÂ” that would guide th e social futures of todayÂ’s students began by deciding what languages would be necessary in three areas of peopleÂ’s lives: work, citizenship, and private life. The nature of work has been transformed in recent years as a result of technology with its Â“iconographic, te xt, and screen-based m odes of interactingÂ” and with less vertical management structur es requiring a more Â“informal, oral, and interpersonal discourseÂ” (p. 66) For example, the Group noted that the typical top-down management structure of the past has been reinvented and vocabular y used to describe peopleÂ’s interactions has taken up edu cational terms, such as mentoring. The New London Group (1996) identified globalizationÂ’s impact on schoolsÂ’ cultural and linguistic diversity with the conseq uential change in Â“the meaning of literacy pedagogyÂ” (p. 69). The academics stated that, Â“cultural diversity is a classroom resourceÂ” that helps everyone because Â“there will be a c ognitive benefit to all children in a pedagogy of linguistic and cultural plur alismÂ” (p. 69). Furthermore, imbued with conviction, the scholars issued their cornerstone belief that Â“when learners juxtapos e different languages, discourses, styles, and approaches, they gain substantively in meta-cognitive and metalinguistic abilities and in their ability to re flect critically on complex systems and their interactionsÂ” (p. 69). New Designs According to the New London Group (1996), multiliteracies refers to Â“the increasing complexity and inter-relationship of different modes of meaningÂ” (p. 78). These
49 modes have Â“functional grammars Â– the metalan guages that describe and explain patterns of meaning [such as] Linguistic Design, Visu al Design, Audio Desi gn, Gestural Design, Spatial Design, and Multimodal DesignÂ” (p. 78). These six modes of meaning have increased in importance in every aspect of so ciety, for example, visual meanings are found in page layout design and screen format; audio meanings are found in sound effects and music; gestural meanings are found in da nce and body language; sp atial meanings are found in architectural spaces and environmental spaces, and multimodal meanings combine multiple modes in unique and attention-getting ways. According to the New London Group (1996), texts are designed through a process of decisions, in which some items are in cluded and some are ex cluded. The pedagogy of multiliteracies, like the continua of biliteracy model (Hornberger & Skilton-Sylvester, 2000), conceptualized a critical metalangua ge in which decisi ons about design are incorporated into all texts. Students acquire practice in using metalanguage in designing texts in a pedagogy of multiliteracies. The New London Group conceptualized peda gogy as a combination of four key aspects: situated practice, ove rt instruction, critical frami ng, and transformed practice. The first aspect, situated practice, accounts for the guidance of the teacher in scaffolding control of the grammar of design, and support the learne rsÂ’ Â“critical understand ingÂ” and Â“ability to critique a systemÂ” (New London Group, 1996, p. 85) The second aspect, overt instruction, is defined by Â“the use of metalanguagesÂ” a nd includes scaffolded le arning activities and Â“focus the learner on the importa nt features of their experien cesÂ” (p. 86). The third aspect, critical framing, has an objective of assisting learners to make sense of something already learned by re-positioning it in another discourse. Finally, th e fourth aspect, transformed
50 practice is Â“to re-create a discour se by engaging in it for our own real purposesÂ” (p. 87). In transformed practice, the learner has to Â“jux tapose and integrateÂ…two different discourses, or social identitiesÂ” (p. 87). Smagorinsky, Cook, and Reed (2005) descri bed how a studentÂ’s rendering of an architectural text, imbued with his unique pe rsonal meaning and identity, was interpreted by his teacher as challenging the traditional ru les of design. In addition to the tensions between the teacherÂ’s meaning and studentÂ’s meaning, tensions also existed between the Â“broader culturesÂ” in which the teacher and student participated. In FaircloughÂ’s (1989) model, the tensions referred to would be situat ed in layer three, th e Â“social conditions of production and interpretation,Â” or context. The architectural text was inextricably embedded within the social and intellectual processes the indivi duals used in the creation of the text. This layer entailed the social interaction between the teacher and student. Furthermore, the processes of production were embedded within the larg er social contexts of production and interpretation, namely the state standards of ar chitectural design. Summary As outlined in the preceding section, the work of many respected literacy scholars and researchers has establishe d an impressive foundation in the major theoretical issues in literacy to guide future research. Key concepts such as language socialization, language acquisition, and language learning have been define d and demonstrated through extensive and significant research. Research on identity in second language learning has shown that learnersÂ’ investments are directly connected to the continuing creation of their social identities.
51 The major tensions in literacy ha ve exerted widespread influence on interdisciplinary research such as th e work by Mignolo (1995/2003) and others. However, more research is still needed con cerning studentsÂ’ involvement in literacy and many other semiotic practices and how t eachers can understand a nd integrate their studentsÂ’ literacy practices within their cl assroom instruction. In other words, how can teachers Â‘think in a culturally diverse wayÂ’? The purpose of this case study was to s how how design thinking and production thinking helped students take on the identities of designers and creators of texts. This study promised to describe how the teacher conceptualized design thinking as well as how the students participated and assumed literate iden tities. This study sought to describe how thinking as designers and producers of writte n and oral texts connected ELLsÂ’ varied literacies, and other semiotic practices, with the schoolÂ’s print-based literacy. Second Language Writing Theory and Pedagogy The development of theory and research in second language writing has mimicked the trends and shifts in writing th eory and research (Raimes, 1991). According to Raimes (1991), the major trends in L2 wr iting theory and research have been aligned with four theoretical foci. The first focus, current-traditional rhet oric, emphasized form and was based on structural li nguistics which said that the purpose of writing was to support the oral development of language. The second focus, the process approach, emphasized the writer and emerged alongsid e the notion of comm unicative competence. The third focus, the genre approach, emphasized writing for specific disciplines. The fourth focus, the social constructionist approach, emphasized explicit instruction.
52 Current-traditional Rhetoric Current-traditional rhetoric (Ferris & Hedgcock, 1998) was based on traditional rhetorical modes such as narration, de scription, exposition, and argumentation. According to Raimes (1991), this method was limited to one or two drafts, errors were corrected by consulting grammar handbooks, and topics were based on literature. However, in the 1970s, research began to fo cus how teachers could help students write better (Raimes, 1991). The Process Approach The process approach in L1 writing res earch (Graves, 1983; Calkins, 1986) had a significant influence both on L1 and L2 writing pedagogy. ZamelÂ’s (1983) research demonstrated the goals of this approach to understand how L2 writers engaged in the composing process, thus reversing the fo cus on grammar and error. Zamel (1983) found that, although there may be differences in th e products due to cultu re, the processes of writing in L2 are similar to the processes of writing in L1. However, the process approach has received criticism for charges that it privileges mainstream literacy practices (Delpit, 1988; Vollmer, 2000) and fails to prepare ELLs for the type of writing required in college (S tapleton, 2002; Zhu, 2001). Despite criticism; however, those who favor process writing ar gue that it helps ELLs discover important aspects of their lives an d identities (Hubbard & Shorey, 2003; Van Sluys, 2003). The Genre Approach In the genre approach (Swales, 1990; Pa rks, 2001), instruc tion is facilitated through the collection of writing task requireme nts and models from specific disciplines and teaching these models by means of exp licit instruction (Ferris & Hedgcock, 1998).
53 However, Luke (1996) argued that the so cial and cultural co sts of genre-based pedagogies put them in danger of reproducing the Â“status and privilege of a particular field of disciplinary knowledgeÂ” (p. 334). Sociocultural Theory and Writing Sociocultural theory (V ygotsky, 1978; Bakhtin, 1986; Wersch, 1991) has shown that the Â“student learns to write by working with a mo re knowledgeable personÂ…through a kind of apprenticeshipÂ” (G rabe & Kaplan, 1996, p. 242). L2 research has examined how the writer behaves in social in teractions that fost er linguistic development (Leki, 1995; de Guerrero & Villamil, 2000; Maguire & Graves, 2001). De Guerrero and Villamil (2002) used a microgenetic approach in their study of two male Spanish-speaking college student s engaged in peer collaboration during revision. De Guerrero and Villamil (2002) not ed the minute changes in the sequence of the pairÂ’s interactions, and described the read erÂ’s actions as contai ning Â“intentionality, task regulation, meaning, and affective invol vement,Â” while the writerÂ’s actions were interpreted as including: Â“ope nness to receiving help, willingn ess to consider suggestions, and no resistance to be ing helpedÂ” (p.17). De Guerrero & Villamil (2000) noted th at the actions of the two discourse partners in the zone of proximal deve lopment indicated mutual benefit through collaboration. The writer included most of the revisions brought up during the session and even made further revisions. The rese archers concluded that the microgenetic approach deserves further use due to its ability to combine instruction and writing development. In addition, the approach revealed results that could not be shown when the focus is on products alone. De Guerrero a nd Villamil (2000) concl uded that synchronous
54 behavior benefits writers during revision a nd the intersubjectivity displayed by the two partners demonstrated that peer scaffolding benefits both partnersÂ’ writing development. The Social Constructionist Approach According to the social constructionist th eorists, linguistic ca pital is needed for linguistically and culturally diverse learners to recognize and utilize codes for academic success (Leki, 1992; Hyland, 1998; Brammer, 2002; Vollmer, 2000). Culturally and linguistically diverse studentsÂ’ syntax or rhet orical style, influenced by L1 or African American Vernacular English (AAVE), has repercussions when students complete academic tasks (Brammer, 2002; Leki, 1992; Ferris, 1995; Hyland, 1998). According to Brammer (2002), students can acquire linguistic capital through explic it instruction that helps them to adopt strategies such as lear ning how to set up an individual error analysis checklist or models the types of supporting arguments that are recognized in academic discourse (Brammer, 2002). Explicit instruction is featured as a part of other approaches for culturally and linguistically diverse students (Brammer, 2002; de Guerrero & Villamil, 2000; Goldstein, 2002; Zhu, 2001). In peer interactions in dyads the teacher provided explicit instruction during grammar minilessons (de Guerrero & Villamil, 2000). The teacherÂ’s explicit instruction scaffolded a student as he wrote a play about th e negotiation of his linguistic identity (Goldstein, 2002). In addition, provi ding explicit instruc tion in metacognitive strategies to improve argumentation skills sa tisfies the need for more focus on structure and organization of ideas in essays (Zhu, 2001; Brammer, 2002). Taking a social constructi onist approach, Vollmer ( 2000) was critical of the writing process approach used in two high school L2 classrooms noting that this
55 approach did not help students acquire and ut ilize linguistic capital for academic success. VollmerÂ’s analysis of studentsÂ’ texts and in terview data generated understandings of how the students positioned themselves discursively and also how the classroom discourses positioned them. Vollmer discovered four points of tension that weakened the goals of the process writing approach in high school L2 classroom contexts. The first tension identified was Â‘monologicÂ’ involvement in learning, that is the discussions in class did not provide space for multiple perspectives. The teacher was the source of knowledge with students reproducing the knowledge in discussions. The second tension was the Â‘disconnectÂ’ between the student-centered pedagogy and th e teacherÂ’s demands. The goals of studentcentered writing process were in conflict with the teacher-dir ected nature of assessments resulting in little investment by the studentsÂ’ in writing. The third tension was the contradicti on between the implicit privileging of individual expression against th e explicit valuing of the social processes of creating texts within peer groups. According to Vollmer (2000), this mixing of methods occurred without regard to Â“audience and discourse co mmunity in the constr uction of a textÂ” (p. 262). The fourth tension resulted from Vo llmerÂ’s investigatio n of the teachersÂ’ instructional beliefs and how these beliefs we re acted out in classr oom discourse. In her conclusion, Vollmer (2000) called for writing researchers and teachers to Â“develop an analysis of the contested natu re of identities in composition classrooms, and the ways in which they are constructed or resist ed through textual practicesÂ” (p. 264).
56 The Reading-Writing Relationship As Ferris and Hedgcock (1998) noted, s econd language literacy acquisition in theory Â“involves a more complex interaction of skills and knowledge than it does in L1 literacy acquisitionÂ” (p. 31). Cummins (1981) distinguished between social language, or interpersonal communication skills, and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP), noting that language in social cont exts is more contextualized, and thus its acquisition is facilitated. According to the Interdeped ence Hypothesis (Cummins, 1981), a Common Underlying Proficienc y (CUP) exists in all lang uages and allows for the interlinguistic transfer of literate skills and actions, but that learners must have a threshold level of L2 proficiency for the tr ansfer of skills and knowledge to occur. Research on bilingual literacy has show n that learners understand the relationship between their L1 and L2 (Goldman, Reyes, & Varnhagen; 1984; Edelsky, 1982; Rubin & Carlan, 2005). Goldman, Reyes, and Varnha gen (1984) demonstrat ed that learners transferred L1 comprehension skills to th eir reading comprehension in L2. Edelsky (1982) showed that bilingual students transf erred writing strategies across two languages. Rubin and Carlan (2005) showed that bilingu al children Â“used their knowledge of words, sounds, and spelling patterns in both language s to convey their meaningÂ” and as their writing developed, it reflected Â“understanding of the similarities and differences between Spanish and EnglishÂ” (p. 737). Reading Constructs Meaning According to Ruddell and Unrau (1994) reading is Â“a meaning-construction processÂ” and readers build th eories and test hypotheses th roughout the act of reading (p. 996-997). The sociocognitive model of reading emphasizes the importance of the
57 classroom context as well as for all indivi duals who comprise the context (Ruddell & Unrau, 1994). The construction of meaning is the goal of reading a nd Â“readers construct meanings not only of printed manuscripts bu t also of events, speech, and behaviors as they Â‘readÂ’ gestures, images, symbols, signs, and signals that are embedded in a social and cultural environmentÂ” (p. 997). Since the act of reading is driven by th e need to search out meaning, both Â“oral and written language development, which affect the thinking process, contribute directly to the development of reading abilityÂ” (p. 997). As mentioned above, readers Â‘readÂ’ meanings in texts and texts are not just print-based but may have fixed images, like picture books, or moving images, like com puter screens. As Ruddell and Unrau (1994) noted, Â“texts are constantly reinvented as readers construct different understandings for themÂ…meanings are dynamic, not static, as i ndividuals, texts, and contexts change and interactÂ” (p. 997). Summary Influenced by writing research and th eory in English, second language writing research has benefited from process writing and sociocultu ral theory to frame new research questions concerning how language le arning occurs through so cial interaction. A key result of this research has been the r ecognition of the need to understand diversity in written expression as well as in instructiona l needs. There has been some research in culturally and linguistically diverse studentsÂ’ unsanc tioned writing (Moje, 2000; Weinstein, 2002) and Latino visual disc ourse (Cowan, 2003; Grady, 2002), but these studies have been limited to a narrow populatio n of students or in contexts outside the classroom. There are many questions in this area that remain unanswered and we have
58 much to learn about the rich backgrounds that culturally and linguistically diverse students bring with them to school. This research sought to understand how th e culturally and linguistically diverse adolescentsÂ’ rich backgrounds with their multiple semiotic practices might be taken into account in the design and production of their wr itten and oral texts. This study promised to describe, through teacher in terviews, the understandings and expectations that the teacher used to facilitate lit eracy practices in the after-school program. In addition, this research promised to portray through participant observati ons, how the teacher implemented her understandings and expectatio ns as she executed her instructional design and how the students participated in the creation of their texts. The Socio-Historical Context The migration of large numbers of pe ople due to globalizat ion is a phenomenon that has significant conseque nces for the future of economic, social, political, and educational structures (Surez-Orozco, 2000; Surez-Orozco & Pez, 2002; Trueba, 2004; Murillo, 2002). The effects of the global ec onomy can be seen in changes such as greater mobility of the workforce, replacement of jobs in manufacturing with information and service jobs, and new regions that cater to cultural products such as tourist or retirement centers (Murillo, 2002). In recent ye ars, areas of the United States that have previously not experienced immigration ha ve begun to do so (Hamann, Wortham, & Murillo, 2002). This trend has caused more im mediate consequences for education than for any other area of society (Mol l & Ruiz, 2002; Surez-Orozco, 2001). Surez-Orozco (2001) defined globalizati on as Â“processes of changeÂ…that result in the deterritorialization of important economic, social, and cultural practices from their
59 traditional moorings in that nationÂ’s stateÂ” ( p. 347). The response of various nations to globalization ranges from exaggerated displays of power, hyper-presence, to exaggerated displays of disregard, hyper-absence. Acco rding to Surez-Orozco, hyper-presence is exemplified by the border between Mexico and the United States, which ranks at the top of the list of the most globalized regi on in the world, whil e hyper-absence is characterized by the huge cash flow to countries where those in charge pay little or no heed to this practice. Three causes are cited for making this phenomenon different from other periods of change, namely, market forces that i gnore borders, informati on technologies, and Â“unprecedented new patterns of immigrationÂ” (Surez-Orozco, 2001, p. 349). SurezOrozco (2001) identified two key features that describe immigration into the United States during the last three decades: first, the size was enormous, for example during the 1990s, immigration rose by more than thirty pe rcent, and second, the countries of origin changed from Europe to Asia and Latin America. The globalization of capital, responsible for the large migration of people and children, is an important element of th is phenomenon (Surez-Orozco, 2001). To understand the consequences of this trend necessitates knowledge of the social and historical issues that have pl ayed a role in the past as we ll as in the present context (Takaki, 1993). An accurate picture of the social-historical context of diversity in education includes a summary of the most salient issues that have constrained instructional conditions for ELLs. One key i ssue that affects disabling conditions for minorities involves cultural models and how they become established (Gee, 1990/1996; Smedley, 1999). A second issue involves how cultural models operate in the social
60 adaptation of minorities to school, which Ogbu (1991) theorized in his research. A third issue addresses how oppressive practices have been contested in the past (Donato, 1997). A fourth issue illuminates some misconceptions that construct monolithic images of culturally and linguistically di verse youth (Zentella, 2005). An Oppressive Cultural Model Perhaps the major issue that affects c onditions for minorities, including language and literacy teaching, involves cultural models and how they become established (Gee, 1990/1996). According to Gee (1989a), Â“the meanings of most wordsÂ…are Â“cultural models, that is, simplified de pictions of reality that i nvolve prototypical objects and eventsÂ” (p. 140). In a diverse society like the U.S., Ogbu (1991) theorized, both dominant and minority groups have distinct cultural mode ls, that is, Â“respectiv e understandings of how their society or any part icular domain or institution works and their respective understandings of their places in that working orderÂ” (p. 7). Historically in the United States, the do minant cultural model constructed race not only to sort people by physical characteristic s, but also to deny social equity in a systematized manner (Smedley, 1999). In th is construction, the po ssession of land was esteemed as the premier class of ownership equated to personal worth and wealth. In colonial America, the notion of natural right s was defined as the possession of land in common; however, natural rights were superseded by civil rights, defi ned as the intention to settle, develop the land, and indicate this intention by cons tructing a fence to demarcate the land. According to Smedley, colonizers of the new land promoted the cultural model that those who lived simply on the land without altering it were said to
61 have natural rights; however, these natural right s were of a lower stat us than the practical, and hence superior, civil ri ghts of the colonizers. According to Gee (1990/1996), people canno t critique their ow n cultural models, acquired in their primary Discourse, unless they acquire a secondary Discourse. During the decades following World War II, American s may have begun to critique their cultural models, according to Smedley (1999), who theo rized that the Nazi human rights abuses during World War II may have caused people in the United States to reflect on the mistreatment of groups in their own country and thus may have led to the judicial dismantling of segregation. The Cultural Ecological Paradigm Anthropologist John Ogbu differentia ted between involuntary immigration, defined as entrance into a country th rough force or colonization, and voluntary immigration, or moving to another country to improve oneÂ’s economic opportunities. Rather than taking the student out of context, Ogbu approached the analysis of the school failure of minorities using the cultural ecolo gical paradigm that st udies the relationship between culture and context. Ogbu (1991) stated that minorities acquired an identity that immobilized their school achievement because Â“they do not see their social identity as merely differentÂ…but rather as oppositional to the social identity of the dominant group membersÂ” (p. 16). OgbuÂ’s research has receiv ed considerable criticism for its limitations in accounting for minority achievement (Lads on-Billings, 1995; Trueba, 2004). Trueba (2004) characterized OgbuÂ’s research as an Â“a lternative theoretical approach to deficit theoriesÂ” (p. 93). According to Ladson-Billi ngs (1995), OgbuÂ’s work is Â“ahistorical and
62 limitedÂ” in its analysis of minority achieveme nt (p. 468). Trueba ( 2004) added that it did not account for the achievement of those Â“who are exposed to the same oppressive societal factorsÂ” (p. 113). Repression and exploitation may generate emotions and other internal resources needed for academic achievement (Trueba, 2004). Moreover, other careers may be seen as having greater pot ential for economic success (Trueba, 2004). To better understand minority achievement, there is a need for an inclusive model of achievement that can explain agency (Trueba, 2004; McKay & Wong, 1996). A Forgotten Struggle A popular misconception that continues to persist is that minority parents are indifferent to their childrenÂ’s education (Delgado-Gaitan, 1990; Donato, 1997; Jimnez, 2004). However, state and national civil rights cases, such as the Lau v. Nichols case, are proof that disputes this belief (Nieto, 2000). In the Lau v. Nichols case of 1974, the Supreme CourtÂ’s ruling stated that equality of resources was not equal education if instruction was conducted in a language the students did not unders tand and, therefore, studentsÂ’ civil rights were be ing violated. As Nieto (2000) stated, the CourtÂ’s decision prompted the federal government to issue guidelines for compliance with the CourtÂ’s ruling called Â“The Lau RemediesÂ” that direct s schools in the methods of identification, assessment and instruction for language minority students. However, even in the decades before th e Lau decision, Mexican American parents were contesting unequal treatment in schools. Donato (1997) chroni cled a fifteen-yearlong confrontation during the 1960s and 1970s between Mexican American parents and white residents of Brownfield, California. The battle in Brownfield involved segregation
63 that occurred both within schools in the practice of tracking and across schools in segregation (Donato, 1997). In the era before the Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954 overturning segregation, Mexican American children were constructed as low-skilled workers, their success in school equated with assimila tion (Donato, 1997). Dona to described how migrant workers were treated as if they were farm machinery. The availability of Mexican American labor was exploited by th e agricultural economy, and the educational system ignored attendance for Mexican Americ an students. A folk model was constructed in schools that Mexican American parents l acked the cultural support to effectively socialize their children for academic success. During the 1960s, the problem of school segregation was ignored, until Mexican American parents protested. The school board began discussion, but Whites issued threats, such as the withdrawal of White -majority schools from the district (Donato, 1997). In the discussion of desegregation plans, Mexican American parents voiced concerns for the safety and treatment of th eir children in White-majority schools, while White parents were against th e long bus trips, but did not fear mistreatment of their children. The struggle ended w ith the adoption of the bare minimum desegregation plan that removed the White-majority sch ools from the desegregation plan. Monoliths and Misconceptions Misconceptions about culturally and lingui stically diverse you th are prevalent because both they and their families are ch aracterized as stereo typical and monolithic (Zentella, 2005). For example, a common misconception is that all Latinos speak Spanish (Surez-Orozco & Pez, 2002; Zentella, 2005). However the term Latino includes those
64 people who are Â“native Spanish, native Portugu ese and native English speakers, foreign born, U.S. born, and those whose families never crossed over a border but, rather, experienced the border crossing over them as a result of 19th century U.S. imperial expansionÂ” (Cowan, 2003, p. 9). In 1848, the war with Mexico ended with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the U.S. annexed Mexican land with the result that the border crossed over Mexicans, forcing them to c hoose between their cultu ral identity and the land they owned (Takaki, 1993). Gender, Immigration, and Teaching During the early twentieth century, immigr ant girls seldom graduated from high school and few pursued higher education becau se poor immigrant families saw their sons as the more likely to profit from the investme nt of funds for educa tion (Seller, 1994). In CovelloÂ’s (1968) study of Italian immigrants, one mother reported that she sacrificed to provide both a high school and college educatio n for her daughter only to be discouraged when she was not able to secure a teaching position. While the U.S. has experienced an increase in Asian and Latina immigration in re cent years, like the early twentieth century, many girls still encountered difficulties in schoo ls. However, unlike the earlier half of the century, more women with educated backgr ounds were among the immigrants and some were prompted by personal hopes and their pa rentsÂ’ dreams of educational achievement (Seller, 1994). Summary The phenomenon of globalization brought on by markets whose borders are blurred by the free-flow of capital and in formation technologies has significant educational consequences. Culturally and lingu istically diverse students are at the center
65 of this phenomenon. The theory of cultural models, their development and operation in studentsÂ’ social adaptation to school critically frames diverse studentsÂ’ context. To counter misconceptions that construct pare nts as unconcerned in their childrenÂ’s education, social-historical research such as DonatoÂ’s (1997) has shown that oppressive practices have been c ontested in the past. Multimodal texts wherein meaning is made in a variety of modes is one of the direct results of information technologies. One of the major goals of this research was to show how multimodal texts were used to support ELLs Â’ literacies. In addition, this study sought to demonstrate and how a Latina teacher inco rporated ideas and la nguage about the design of multimodal texts into an after-school program. The overall goal of this study was to contribute some new understa ndings about how literacy pedagogy in culturally diverse contexts might connect student sÂ’ varied literacy, and other semiotic practices, with the schoolÂ’s print-based literacy. Culturally Responsive Pedagogy Three major scholars have defined cultural responsiveness as the major ingredient necessary for the school success of culturally and linguistically diverse students (Au, 1993; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Gay, 2002). A common theme emerged through a comparison of these three definitions. Au (1993), referred to cu lturally responsive instruction as Â“instruction consistent with the values of studentsÂ’ own cultures and aimed at improving academic learningÂ” (p. 13). Gay (2002) de fined culturally responsive teaching as Â“using the cultural characteristics, experiences, and perspectives of ethnically diverse students as conduits for teaching them more effectivelyÂ” (p. 106). Acco rding to Ladson-Billings (1992), culturally relevant teaching Â“is designed not merely to fit the school culture to th e studentsÂ’ culture but
66 also to use student culture as the basis for he lping students understand themselves and others, structure social intera ctions, and conceptual ize knowledgeÂ” (p. 314). The common element in each of these definitions is the notion that startin g with the studentsÂ’ cultures is the way to be culturally responsive, no t the other way around. According to Bailey and Pransky (2005), todayÂ’s educational trend of Â‘one-sizefits-all-skillsÂ’ pedagogy claims to be the best appro ach for all students based on the mainstream belief that everyone learns in e ssentially the same way. However, research has shown that learning is a process embe dded within culture (Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1991). Within the many cultural contexts in which students learn, there are diverse perspectives, practices, histories, and goals (Freire, 2003; Nieto, 2000; Au, 1993). However, as de Castell and Luke (1983/1988) noted, the typical response to growth in school diversity has been to strengthen the one-size-fits-all-skills standard. Many students come to school with linguistic patterns that often differ from those of their teachers (Heath, 1983; Au, 1980) Moreover, teachers do not Â“seeÂ” their culturally diverse studentsÂ’ literacies (Moje, 2000, 2002; Weinstein, 2002; RubinsteinAvila, 2004; Godina, 2004). Furthermore, as Bail ey and Pransky (2005) noted, it is ironic that the Â“one-size-fits-all-skillsÂ” orientat ion to education may further this Â“cultural blindnessÂ” and obstruct caring educators from becoming culturally responsive teachers. Several factors that help ELLs achieve success in school have been identified (Cummins, 1986; Moll, 1988; Jimnez, 2000). One of the key criteria that fosters ELLsÂ’ achievement is their interac tions with teachers in school (Cummins, 1986; Helmar-Salasoo, Bronner and Bonissone, 2002). Moll ( 1988) outlined four findings th at described the qualities of exemplary teachers of culturally and linguistic ally diverse students: first, their disposition,
67 instructional practices, and outcomes differed from the dominant school practices; second, their instruction was flexible; third, they ch allenged students with high-level reading and writing; and fourth, they provided student choice and independence. Teachers who establish positive classroom contexts for ELLs promote studentsÂ’ cultural identities and give stude nts constant opportunities to di scover pride in their ethnic, cultural, and social identities (Ferdman, 1990; Jimnez, 2000; Lucas, Henze & Donato, 1990; McKay & Wong, 1996; Yau & Jimnez, 2003). T oo often teachers do not see their ELLsÂ’ literacies (Moje, 2000, 2002; Weinstein, 2002; Rubinste in-Avila, 2004; Godina, 2004). However, exemplary teachers are involved in learning more about their culturally and linguistically diverse students (McCarthey, Garcia, Velasquez, Lin, & Guo, 2004; HelmarSalasoo, Bronner and Bonissone (2002). Teachers need to understand the role L1 plays in literacy learning (Jimnez, 1997). However, beyond understanding the role of L 1, exemplary teachers of culturally and linguistically diverse students value the stude ntsÂ’ L1 and encourage its use (Helmar-Salasoo, Bronner and Bonissone, 2002; McCarthey et al, 2004; Cummins, 1986). Bilingual students should be recognized as having dual language abilities (Jimnez, 2001). Although English may be the common language in schools, student s should be encouraged to make connections between their L1 and the content area they are studying (McCarthey et al, 2004). Exemplary teachers encourage parent and community involvement in school activities (Lee & Croninger, 1994; Riojas-Cor tez, Flores, Smith, & Clark, 2003). Latino families have been criticized for being indiffe rent to their childrenÂ’s education (DelgadoGaitan, 1990; Jimnez, 2004), but when invited to participate in literacy events, Latino parents express interest (Riojas-Cortez, Fl ores, Smith and Clark, 2003). In their study,
68 Riojas-Cortez, Flores, Smith and Clark (2003) i nvited families to participate in storytelling sessions in school and learned that the familiesÂ’ literacy traditions could be connected to school literacy. Exemplary teachers and schools challenge students with high-level reading and writing (Cazden, 2002; Helmar-Salasoo, Br onner & Bonissone, 2002; Lucas, Henze & Donato, 1990; Pradl, 2002). CazdenÂ’s (2002) desc riptive study of the Pu ente project provided a glimpse of instruction, texts being read, wr iting assignment was to shadow professional people and write a newspaper article. As Cazden (2002) noted, although the language of Puente is English, the use of Spanish, even in classes, Â“is another form of cultural validation, even for those students who know it only as th e language of their grandparentsÂ” (p. 510). Exemplary educators demonstrate will ingness to go beyond deficit thinking and encourage studentsÂ’ giftedness (Garcia & Gu erra, 2004; Ford & Grantham, 2003; HelmarSalasoo, Bronner, and Bonissone, 2002). Ex emplary teachers treat culturally and linguistically diverse students as intelligent and competent learners (Garcia & Guerra, 2004; Ford & Grantham, 2003; Helmar-Salasoo, Bronn er, and Bonissone, 2002; McCarthey et al, 2004). Furthermore, they offer students optio ns and independence (Helmar-Salasoo, Bronner, and Bonissone, 2002; Pradl, 2002). Research has found that teachers need info rmation on how to address the needs of ELLs (OÂ’Byrne, 2001; McCarthey et al, 2004 ; Gunderson, 2000). According to OÂ’Byrne (2001), secondary English teachers Â“need professional development to relate their instructional and assessment practices to what is known about L2 acquisitionÂ” (p. 441). In addition, teachers need to know about culture and include it in thei r writing instruction (McCarthey et al, 2004). Jim nez (1997) found that there were three important things
69 teachers could do that would meet ELLsÂ’ needs: first, offer cognitive strategy instruction; second, provide activities based on culturally familiar text; and third, give multiple opportunities to improve reading fluency. Cummins (1986) outlined four areas that can be used to identify educatorsÂ’ commitment to the success of minority students: first, promoting st udentsÂ’ linguistic and cultural gifts; second, inviting parent and co mmunity participation; third, implementing a constructivist approach to in struction that fosters dialogue and builds strategies for collaborative and independent learning; fi nally, promoting advocacy beliefs toward assessment. Lucas, Henze, and Donato ( 1990) found that successful high schools for language minority students were identified by five criteria: first, supporting studentsÂ’ identities; second, maintaining high expectations ; third, providing guidance for future goals; fourth, involving parents; a nd fifth, supporting school-based and community-based student activities for language minority students. Summary One of the most well researched areas in education has been th e area of culturally responsive pedagogy. Three scholars in the fiel d have defined the common theme of this key theory, namely that starting with the stud entsÂ’ cultures is the way for teachers to be culturally responsive. However, in times of strong growth in divers ity, one-size-fits-all instructional practices have predominated. TodayÂ’s educational c ontext does not differ from this pattern. Yet, several studies have shown that exceptional culturally responsive teachers, programs, and schools exist and are paradigms for equity in education, although these tend to be outside the re alm of public school education.
70 The aim of this research was to provi de specific and detailed understandings, through participant observations, of how a cu lturally responsive teacher helped students learn through analysis and discussion, thus gaining meta-cognitive and meta-linguistic abilities. In addition, this research sought to demonstrate, through both participant observations and interviews with the teach er and students, that students represent meaning in a variety of multimodal texts, whic h support their literacy learning in school. Multimodality and Critical Literacy The notion of multiliteracies conceptuali zes the ability to interpret and design messages that involve multiple and varied modes of meaning and to explain the various patterns of their grammars, or metalangua ges. According to the New London Group (1996), the design of texts entails decisions accomplished through soci al interaction. The pedagogy of multiliteracies, like the continua of biliteracy model (Hornberger & SkiltonSylvester, 2000), conceptualized a metala nguage in which decisions about design are incorporated into all texts. Students acqui re metalanguage through practice in the design and production of texts. Multimodality According to Kress (2003), mode is a Â“cu lturally and socially fashioned resource for representation and communica tionÂ” (p. 45). Modes have regul ar patterns, or organized systems of features that originate in past cultural meaning-making practices. Kress (2003) called these regular patterns a Â“grammar a nd syntaxÂ” (p. 45). Modes such as music, dance, speech, action, and gest ure are called Â‘time-based mode sÂ’ whereas visual images are spatial or Â‘space-based modes.Â’ The logi c of time and the logic of space specify how
71 elements are distributed and this relationship of elements is a Â“resource for meaning (Kress, 2003, p. 45). According to Kress (2003), some modes ar e a mixture of two logics, for example gesture, which is spatial and involves m ovement, and writing, which is based on sound, but has taken on spatial features such as bulle t points and tint blocks. According to Kress, Â“mixed logics areÂ…a feature of multimodal texts, that is, texts made up of elements of modes which are based on diffe rent logicsÂ” (p. 46). Through art, students generate intellectual visions of themselv es as artists and rehearse the procedures implicit in their creations (Heath, 2004). According to Heath (2004), students make metacognitive invest ments in their own creativity and employ reflection on past performances or creatio ns as well as anticipation about future performances or creations. As Heath (2004) noted, learning in art depends on observation, analysis, and critique for use in later mental imagi ng and the artist learns that Â“casting the self forwardÂ” may improve futu re performances (p. 340). Thus, involvement in the arts benefits the artist in terms of metacognition, use of st rategies, literacy, and identity construction. Drawing and creating art ar e literate acts (Albers & Murphy; 2000; Cowan, 2003; Grady, 2002). However, art produced in the cont ext of school is iden tified by particular literacy practices and distinguished from art pr oduced outside of the mainstream (Barton & Hamilton, 1998). Engagement in art embodies both personal and social goals and students are bounded by roles and practices (G rady, 2002). In addition, the objects that students create reproduce ideological contex ts (Cowan, 2003). Although the creators may
72 or may not share the same meanings represente d in their creations, the objects themselves are a visual recognition of the artistsÂ’ social and cu ltural identitie s (Grady, 2002). Critical Literacy Although Â‘criticalÂ’ is a popular word in e ducation, it often suffers from either too much or too little meaning (Lankshear, 1997). Ac cording to educator Paulo Freire (1995), critical practice is Â“dialogical practiceÂ” and Â“dialogue is a way of knowingÂ” rather than only a way Â“to involve students in a particular taskÂ” (p. 379) Dialogue can be wedded to design in classroom lessons, curriculum, and broad educational progr ams with the use of the continua model of bilit eracy (Hornberger and Skilton-Sylvester, 2000) as a guide. Hornberger and Skilton-SylvesterÂ’s (2000) Â“continua model of biliteracy offers a framework in which to situate research, teach ing, and language planning in linguistically diverse settingsÂ” (p. 96). The model conceptu alizes the tensions between school-based literacies and vernacula r literacies. Through its focus on Â“power weighting,Â” it shows how the literary end of the conti nua is privileged over the ve rnacular end, such as writing growth over oral growth (Hornberg er and Skilton-Sylvester, 2000). In Skilton-SylvesterÂ’s research, a young Cambodian 11th grader who, after reading a multicultural text by an Asian woman writer, as ked if she was the lone example of Asian women writers in English. Skilton-Sylvester (20 00) noted that the multicultural text would be placed on both ends of the continua because Â“it opened a door for her to be a part of literary discourse in a new wayÂ” (p. 109). One of the least powerful elem ents of literacy is the vernacular, which is generally not include d in school contexts (Hornberger and SkiltonSylvester, 2000). Nevertheless, Skilton-Sylv ester learned that students Â“framed as Â‘non-
73 writersÂ’ in schooling contextsÂ” were accomplis hed at composing letters and plays for family and friends. According to Hornberger and Skilton-Sylv ester (2000), the degree to which learners are able to utilize th e literacies throughout the continua, determin es their biliteracy outcomes. Because their intention was to prom ote reflection and give agency and voice to individuals and discursive prac tices, Hornberger & Skilton-Sylv ester (2000) concluded that Â“the inclusion of lear nersÂ’ voice and agency is the only ethically acceptable solution when it comes to educating a linguist ically and culturally diverse learner populationÂ” (p. 118). Summary Decisions about design are inco rporated into all texts th rough the use of discourse that students acquire through practice in the de sign and production of texts. For example, bilingual students make an important desi gn decision when they choose the language in which to write their texts. In this study, I planned to show how decisions were reached about the discourse of the texts, and the exte nt to which the teacher scaffolded studentsÂ’ understandings about audience and language. I sought to understa nd how the teacherÂ’s explicit, or overt instruction used discourse to scaffold learning activities in the play production. Conclusion The purpose of this study was to investigate the literacy events in which the students and their bilingual teacher e ngaged and to examine the texts of 7th grade ELLs. Within the after-school program, I observed th e literacy events in which the students and teacher engaged, interviewed the teacher and st udents, collected samples of the studentsÂ’
74 texts, and videotaped a performance by the stud ents. I selected a naturalistic case study design as my methodology. This research promised to move the field forward by developing a theory of design in literacy instruction for culturally and li nguistically diverse students, taking into account the importance of the two key roles: the teacher as designe r of the context and the students as designers of texts. This research intended to describe the teacherÂ’s knowledge of culturally and lingu istically diverse youthsÂ’ rich backgrounds and literacy practices that they bring to school. In addition, this research sought to learn more about the knowledge culturally and linguistically dive rse youth bring to thei r role as designers of texts.
75 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY Introduction In this chapter, I present the met hodology of this naturalistic case study, the purpose of which was to explore what happened when 7th grade Latino/a ELLs and their Latina teacher produced a play in the context of an after school program and to determine the relationship between the participantsÂ’ disc ourse practices and their performance. In addition, I sought to describe th e characteristics of the performance and to find out if the participants validated their pe rformance, and if so, how. This chapter contains five sections. Section one, the Outline of the Study, contains the theoretical framework, the research questi ons, and the criteria for a quality case study. Section two, Participant Sel ection and Consent, describe s the sampling and consent procedures followed in this study. Section thr ee, Data Collection, describes the types of data collected for the study, as well as the plan for collection and management of the data. Section four, Data Analys is, describes the three methods of data analysis used in this study, namely Discourse Analysis (G ee, 2005), the three characteristics of multimodal literacy, and Grounded Theory (Gla ser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Section five, the Plan to Ensure Credibility, de scribes triangulation, the role of the researcher, the presentation of the case, and the plan to ensure trustworthiness.
76 Outline of the Study Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework, as Merriam (1998) stated, is the epistemological stance through which the rese archer approaches the study. The framework contains the conceptual tools that allow the research er to design the methodology to answer the research questions. This natu ralistic case study employed as it s theoretical framework the literacy-as-social-practices perspectives of the new literacy studi es (Gee, 1996; Street, 1995, 2005b; Lankshear, 1997; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003) as well as communities of practice theory (Wenger, 1998). The literacy-as-social-practices persp ectives of the new literacy studies challenged the traditional definition of literacy as the ability to read and write. According to the new literacy studies, text s can be read in a variety of ways, and the ability to read any given text involves many other fact ors besides simple decoding (Gee, 1996). According to Gee, these factors are related to the experiences people have in becoming socialized into a particul ar Discourse. Discourses with an upper case Â“DÂ” involve language and other things individuals use in their ways of talking, thinking, acting, feeling, believing, and dressing th at help others recognize th em and what they are doing. Since the ability to read a te xt in a certain way depends on a personÂ’s socialization into a specific Discourse, literacy practices are impo ssible to isolate from the other practices involved in Discourses, namely ways of talking, interacting, valuing and believing. To distinguish language from the other practices involved in Discourses, it is identified as discourse with a little Â“d.Â” As Gee (2005) state d, Â“language is used Â‘on siteÂ’ to enact activities and identities. But activit ies and identities are rarely ever enacted
77 through language aloneÂ” (p. 7). Because language and, therefore, literacy practices are impossible to isolate from the ot her practices involved in Disc ourses, Â“literacy is seen as a set of discourse practices, that is, as wa ys of using language and making sense both in speech and writingÂ” (Gee, 1989d, p. 39). In addition to the literacy-as-social-pract ices perspectives of the new literacy studies (Gee, 1996; Street 1995, 2005b; Lankshear, 1997; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003), this naturalistic case study was also framed by communities of practice theory (Wenger, 1998). Community of practice theory in educati onal contexts conceptu alizes participantsÂ’ joint contributions to learning through meaning, practice, and identity. Within communities of practice, the purpose for learni ng involves integrating oneself into the communityÂ’s shared practices, which i nvolves representing oneself through new identities. In communities of practice theory, th ere are three modes of belonging: engagement, imagination, and alignment. The first mode of belonging, engagement, is defined as active participation in th e meaning making of a community. Active participation in the meaning making of an educational community means providing chances for students to take control of their own learning, Wenger stated Â“in the production of sharable artifactsÂ” (p. 184). The second mode of belonging is imaginat ion, or conceptualizing a history of a communityÂ’s meanings. In educational settings, imagination means helping students understand who they are in the social-historical c ontext, which cannot be worked out in isolation from others. According to Wenger (1 998), imagination recruits the ability to look at situations thr ough a different lens.
78 The third mode of belonging is alignment, a process that results in coordination of action and recruits the ability to organize different perspectives Alignment relies on people with multiple memberships who are uniqu ely adept at Â“finding ways of being that can encompass multiple, conflicting perspectives in the course of addressing significant issuesÂ” (Wenger, 1998, p. 175). Framed by bot h the literacy-associal-practices perspectives and community of practice th eory, with emphasis on the three modes of belonging, the participantsÂ’ contributions to learning in the play production were conceptualized through meani ng, practice, and identity. Research Questions The research questions for this case we re based on an issue that arises when teachers notice the many ways in which adolesce nt ELLs use literacy in both their L1 and L2. Literacy, Gee (1989d) stated, Â“is seen as a set of discourse practices, that is, as ways of using language and making sense both in speech and writingÂ” (p. 39). Since literacy is understood as a set of discourse practices, the is sue in this case was how to describe and understand the participantsÂ’ engagement with literacy practices; a nd to explain their perceptions in order to facil itate culturally responsive pedagogy to support academic learning. Based on this issue, the research questi ons for this case study were constructed as follows: 1. What happens when a group of 7th grade Latino/a ELLs and their Latina teacher produce a play in an after-school program during the final six weeks of the school year?
79 a. What is the relationship between the participantsÂ’ discourse practices and their performance? 2. What are the characteristics of the performances? a. Do the participants validate th eir performance? If so, how? The answers to these questions promised to develop a picture of the participantsÂ’ engagement with literacy pract ices in an after-school cont ext and to suggest ways to move the field forward by contributing to th e development of a Design for Performance Learning that is culturally responsive and supports academic learning. Case Study Criteria According to Yin (2003), there are five criteria that guide researchers in the construction of an exemplary case study. The firs t of these criteria is significance, that is, the case must be about a phenomenon that has no t been investigated in depth in the past. I conducted a search of dissertati on abstracts using the key words adolescent English language learners and after school program which yielded 9 dissertations since 1997. Another search using the key words after school program middle school and ELLs yielded 15 dissertations sin ce 1999. Substituting the key word Latino for ELLs generated 35 dissertations. However, using the key words drama play or performance adolescent ELLs and after school program produced no results. As a result of this search, this case study promised to yield significant findings because it concerned a phenomenon that had not been investigated in depth in the past. YinÂ’s second criterion is that the case must be complete. A complete case should reflect effort to collect as much of the re levant evidence as possible. I accomplished this by conducting interviews with each of the participants, incl uding all 13 actors and the
80 teacher. I collected written reflective respons es from 11 of the 13 actors. To demonstrate completeness of the description, I conducte d observations of 20 out of 23 of the rehearsals as well as observations of the cla ssroom interaction. I reco rded a videotape of the performance, and the data on the videotap e was transferred to a digital videodisk. I also wrote a fieldwork journal th roughout the course of the study. YinÂ’s third criterion stat es that the case must be approached through the consideration of alternative perspectives. To consider the alternative perspectives, I interviewed all 13 actors. Out of the total of 13 actors, 11 complete d reflective responses. To follow YinÂ’s third criterion, I included the alternat ive perspectives of the participants who were critical. The fourth of YinÂ’s (2003) criteria for an exemplary case measures a study by its presentation of a thorough and accurate description of the evidence. To present a thorough and accurate description of the evidence so that readers might reach their own independent judgments regarding the mer its of the findings, I included detailed descriptions of the observations from three re presentative sections of the rehearsals: the beginning, or Rising Action; the middle, or Turning Point; and the end, or Resolution. Within each section, I presented a detailed desc ription of the specific context essential to understanding the participants Â’ discourse practices. For the Discourse Analysis, I analyzed the oral texts of a ll 14 participants (13 students a nd the teacher), and the written texts of 11 out of 13 students (two studen ts did not submit reflective responses). To determine the characteristics of the performance, I created three characteristics, which describe d the context in detail: the contextual characteristic, the intertextual characteristic, and the social ch aracteristic. The contextual characteristic
81 described the literacy events that aroused the actorsÂ’ awareness of the sociohistorical context as well as the literacy events that aroused their awareness of the contemporary context. The sociohistorical context is the even ts that occur in the chronological period in which the historical novel Esperanza Rising is set. The contemporary context is the present-day events that occur in the world outside the play Esperanza Renace and are related to the chronolog ical period in which Esperanza Rising is set. This period touches on the history of Mexican immigration to the United States. The intertextual characteristic described how participants dr ew from various elements of the modes of meaning to produce a unique multimodal text. The intertextual characteristic also described events that initiated actors into th e Mexican performance Discourse. The social characteristic was divided into two levels. Th e level one social characteristic described the literacy events through which severa l Latina adolescents constructed cultural meanings. In addition, the level two social ch aracteristic described the literacy events through which the Latino/a adolescents a nd the Latina teacher constructed cultural meanings and knowledge in the production of the play. Finally, according to YinÂ’s fifth criterion, the researcher must engage the reader with the contribution of a well-written case. To engage the reader w ith the contribution of a well-written case, I followed the order of the four research questions. First, I presented a three-part narrative to cont extualize the Discourse Anal ysis. Second, I presented the Discourse Analysis of the participantsÂ’ writ ten and oral texts. Third, I presented the findings of the characteristics of the perf ormance. Fourth, I presented the findings concerning how the actors validated their perf ormance in their written texts and how one actor validated the performance in both his writ ten and oral texts. Fi nally, I concluded the
82 report of the findings with a narrative to demonstrate how the actors validated their performance in their self-dir ected rehearsal on da y 20, immediately prior to their final performance. Participant Selection and Consent Purposeful Sampling As Patton (2002) noted, purposeful sampling Â“consists of information-rich cases that manifest the phenomenon of interestÂ” ( p. 234). Purposeful sampling (Patton, 2002; Miles & Huberman, 1994) was used to select a bilingual Latina teacher who used afterschool play productions to help her Latino/a students constr uct a social context that supported their literacy practices. The two reasons for the selection of the teacher for this study were grounded in the theory of culturall y responsive instruction (Au, 1993). First, as a native Spanish speaker, the teacherÂ’s cultural and linguistic background identified her as someone who reflected the phenom enon of interest. Second, knowledge of the former play production and that it was part of the after-school program aroused interest in the kinds of practices us ed in that context. Purposeful sampling (Patton, 2002; Miles & Huberman, 1994) was used to select all 13 students who participated in the pl ay production in the after-school program. Although a total of 13 students performed duri ng the rehearsals, the teacher added one boy (Carlos) to the play in the final rehearsa l. Since Carlos rehearsed only one day, he was not selected as one of the 13 students who participated in the play production for three to six weeks. The stude nts who participated and who were selected (3 boys and 10 girls) were all Latino/a. The Latina teacher was from Central America, and one student was from South America. The remaining 12 students were of Mexican or Mexican-
83 American heritage. The average age of the 7th grade students was 13, except for one who was fifteen. The 13 students and the teacher made up the after-school play production. This after-school play production was selected because it was an information-rich case, which would provide the best information to answer the research questions (Patton, 2002; Merriam, 1998; Creswell, 2003). Student Assent Before fieldwork began, all student particip ants were given an assent form that ensured that their anonymity w ould be maintained throughout the course of the study and that they would be referred to in th e study report by pseudonyms (Seidman, 1998). The assent forms were distributed to students on the first day and were collected beginning on the second day and throughout the study. All assent forms were collected by the last day of the study. A copy of the student asse nt form appears in Appendix A. Parental Consent The parental consent form explained th e purpose of the study, the topic of the interviews, the use of interview and textual data, permission for copies of texts to be reproduced, and the studentsÂ’ righ t to withdraw from the stud y at any time during the study. The parental consent form was translated in to Spanish. The parental consent forms were distributed to students on the first day and th ey were collected beginning on the second day and throughout the study. All parental consen t forms were collected before the final performance. Copies of the parental consent forms in both English and Spanish appear in Appendix A.
84 Teacher Consent The teacher consent form explained the purpose of the study, the topic of the interviews, the use of interview data, and the teacherÂ’s right to wit hdraw from the study at any time during the study. The teacher consent form was given to the teacher on the first day of the study and collected on the same day. A copy of the teacher consent form appears in Appendix A. Every aspect of this study was conduc ted in accordance with IRB policies and procedures and as approved by the IRB. Data Collection Data Sources The process of data collection in this naturalistic case study entailed gathering data from several sources, although the majo r source of data collection was observations and field notes (Merriam, 1998; Patton, 2002) The goal in this case study was to construct an accurate and clear portrayal of the literacy events in which 7th grade ELLs and their teacher were engaged. As a first step toward this goal, data analysis began on the first day in the field. On the first day in th e field and each of the days thereafter, field notes were recorded by hand, transcribed daily and saved in computer files labeled by date. A hard copy of the transcribed field note s was kept in a binder. The interviews were transcribed and saved in computer files labele d by date. In addition to observations, data were collected from the following sources: semi-structured interviews with the teacher and the students; and documents in the form of studentsÂ’ academic texts. Data were collected over the course of a six-week period of fieldwork. Th e following is a list of the data collected in this case study:
85 1) Observations of the participantsÂ’ interact ions were written in field notes. Field notes were recorded both in the classr oom and in the after-school program. The original plan called for observations of classroom interaction, which I believed had to be made since the play producti on was connected to the studentsÂ’ final grade in the classroom. Since the play production might be connected to the studentsÂ’ final grade in the classroom, I observed the participantsÂ’ interactions in both the classroom and the after-school context, although the research questions addressed the after-scho ol play production. 2) Five semi-structured interviews with th e teacher were tape -recorded. The tapes were transcribed into computer files and labeled by date. 3) The studentsÂ’ reflective res ponses were collected after the pla y. The original plan stated that the Â“studentsÂ’ academic te xts: e.g. essays, notebooks and journalsÂ” would be collected. My intention was to coll ect any written text related to the play production. The teacher called these evaluati ons reflection journals. I changed the name to reflective responses to indica te that they were written only once. Collecting the studentsÂ’ reflective responses on their participati on in the play was in keeping with the original plan. 4) 1-2 semi-structured interviews with all 13 ELLs were taperecorded. The tapes were transcribed into computer files and labeled by date. 5) A DVD of the studentsÂ’ final performance of the play for the parents was made. The original plan called for a videotap ed dramatic performance. The final performance of the play was videotaped a nd then transferred to a digital videodisk format.
86 6) A fieldwork journal reflecting my thoughts during the data collection period was written throughout the data collec tion period. Data were collected according to the following plan: first, observations of the participantsÂ’ interactions in both the after-school program a nd the classroom were written in field notes and transcribed into computer files labeled by date. These files were then copied and pasted into Ethnograph before bei ng analyzed. Second, a series of five semistructured interviews with the teacher were taped using a tape recorder. One interview took place at the beginning of fieldwork, two in the middle, and one at the end of the fieldwork. The interviews with Mrs. R. were transcribed into computer files and labeled by date before being analyzed. Third, 1-2 se mi-structured interviews were tape-recorded with each of the 13 students who participated in the play production. One student, Luis, was interviewed only once after the performance and the interview was tape-recorded at his home. The student interviews were transcri bed into computer files and labeled by date before being analyzed. Fourth, I videotaped the final performa nce of the play and the data on the videotape was copied to a digi tal videodisk (DVD) format. Fi fth, copies of the studentsÂ’ written reflective responses were made and the original documents returned to the teacher. Sixth, a fieldwork journal of reflect ions during the data collection process was written throughout the data colle ction period. The fieldwork j ournal was transcribed into a computer file to maintain a record of re flections during the data collection period. The fieldwork journal supported the holistic aims of this case study research because it reflected the researcherÂ’s id eas, thoughts, or concerns dur ing fieldwork (Merriam, 1998).
87 Fieldwork The first day of data collection was April 5th and the last day was May 25th for a total of 6 weeks. The total number of days for the play production was 23, of which I observed 20. Two days were missed due to teaching commitments and one day due to a previously scheduled doctorÂ’s appointme nt. The after-school program met every afternoon from 2:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m., a nd included two Saturdays. The student interviews were conducted either in the libr ary adjoining the classroom, in the teacherÂ’s office, in the cafeteria, or, in one case, at th e studentÂ’s home in the parentsÂ’ presence. The interviews with the teacher we re conducted before or after th e rehearsals. The field notes were transcribed on the evening of the day on which they were collected. Teacher Interviews Five semi-structured interviews (Merriam 1998) with the teacher, also known as Mrs. R., were conducted according to the follo wing plan: 2 at the beginning, 2 in the middle, and 1 after the final performance. A ll of the interviews were tape-recorded and each one was approximately thirty minutes in length. The tapes were transcribed, labeled by date, and saved in computer files. The transcripts were printed and a hard copy was shown to the teacher to verify the accuracy of the information in the transcripts through the process of member checking (Stake, 1995). The teacher made no corrections or additions to the transcripts. Th e questions used in the semi-structured interviews with the teacher appear in Appendix B. Data Collected from Students Two types of data were collected from the students: tape-recorded interviews and written reflective responses generated in cla ss the Monday after the final performance of
88 the play, which took place on a Saturday. Pseud onyms were used to identify the studentsÂ’ documents and interviews throughout the study. Documents The documents collected from the students provided evidence of their varied literacy practices (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). Th e documents collected from the students consisted of their written reflective responses generated in the classroom on the last regular school day of the year, which was the Monday following the final performance on Saturday. Copies of the studentsÂ’ reflective re sponses were made the same day they were written and the originals were returned to the teacher. Interviews Semi-structured interviews Merriam (1998) explained, are Â“a mix of more and less structured questionsÂ” (p. 74). In the semi-s tructured interviews, an interview protocol was used to gather the student sÂ’ responses to structured questions, whereas information specific to each studentÂ’s situation was explored more deeply using open-ended questions. As Merriam noted, the semi-structured interview is in keeping with the assumption in qualitative research that indi vidual actors experience events in different ways. 1-2 semi-structured interviews were conducted with each of the 13 students during fieldwork, except for one student (Luis) who was interviewed only once after the final performance. LuisÂ’s interview took plac e at his home. Each of the other students was interviewed at the mid-point and agai n near the end of the study. Even though the students had received an expl anation about the purpose of the study when the student consent forms were disseminated before fi eldwork began, the purpose of the interview
89 and the procedure to be used was briefly restated for each student before the first interview was taped. When taping began, each student was greeted and asked to state his or her name. Then questions from the semi-s tructured interview prot ocol were asked to ascertain the studentÂ’s views of the literacy events in which they participated. Questions applicable to the studentÂ’s particular char acter or context were interspersed among the structured questions of the student-interview protocol. The tapes were completely transcribed before the final rehearsal. The transcripts of the interviews were show n to the students so that th e students could verify the accuracy of the information in the transcri pts through the process of member checking (Stake, 1995). The students made no corrections or additions to the transcripts. When not in use during rehearsals, the tape recorder a nd tapes were stored in the teacherÂ’s locked office. The questions used in the semi-struc tured interview protocol for the students appear in Appendix C. Data Collection Matrix Qualitative researchers benefit from the creation of a data matrix prior to fieldwork (Miles & Huberman, 1994). A data ma trix was created to display the research questions, the data collected, a nd the methods used to analy ze the data. The data matrix appears in Appendix D. Character Chart A character chart was created as an organi zational tool to display the actors and the characters they played. This graphic organi zer was designed as an aid for readers of the study. The character char t appears in Appendix E.
90 Data Management Data management is defined as the proce dures required for the organization of the collection, storage and retrieva l of data (Miles & Huberma n, 1994). Procedures for data management have three clear re sults: first, superior data a nd ease of retrieval; second, an account of the exact analysis that has been co mpleted; and third, pres ervation of data and analyses after research (Miles & Huberman, 199 4). The following is a list of the data records that were maintained in this study: a) raw field notes, b) audi o tapes, c) a digital videodisk of the final performance, d) studentsÂ’ written reflective responses, e) processed data in computer files, f) coded data, g) code book, h) memos, i) data displays, j) chronological log of data collect ion, k) a fieldwork journal, a nd l) an index of all of the material. The data records were managed as follows in this study: 1) Raw field notes were written in steno notebooks and dated. 2) Student interviews were transcribed, da ted, and stored in computer files by date and studentÂ’s name. The teacherÂ’s interviews were transcribed, dated, and stored in computer files by date. 3) The data recorded on the videotape of the class performance was transferred to a digital video format. 4) A binder was maintained to store a hard copy of the observations for reference in the analysis. 5) A principal binder was maintained to store the following documents: the script of the play, copies of the stude ntsÂ’ written reflective responses, the codebook, the chronological log of fiel dwork, the fieldwork journal, the
91 data matrix, the consent forms and an i ndex of all the material in the data collection. Data Analysis Introduction Analysis is a system of transforming fi eld notes, interviews, and artifacts into findings (Dyson & Genishi, 2005). Three forms of analysis were used in this case study: Discourse Analysis (Gee, 2005), the three ch aracteristics of multimodal literacy, which were derived from the three features Cowa n (2003, 2005) used to analyze Latino visual discourse, and Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Discourse Analysis I used Discourse Analysis (Gee, 2005) to analyze the actorsÂ’ reflective responses and the written transcriptions of the particip antsÂ’ interviews. Discourse Analysis uses the property of language known as reflexivity, in which, Gee stated, Â“language always simultaneously reflects and constructs the situa tion or context in which it is usedÂ” (p. 97). Language, used to perform activities and identi ties, is known as disc ourse with a little Â“d;Â” however, little Â“dÂ” discourse is genera lly accompanied by Â“big DÂ” Discourses. Â“Big DÂ” Discourses involve language and other things people use in their ways of talking, thinking, acting, feeling, believing, and dressing that help others recognize them and what they are doing or building. First, I transcribed all the interviews word -for-word and arranged them in stanzas. Next, I read and re-read the written transcri ptions, and the reflective responses, always keeping in mind GeeÂ’s (2005) he uristic about how the partic ipants were using language to Â“build identities and activ ities and recognize id entities and activitie sÂ” others were
92 constructing around them (p. 10). By reading all the transcrip tions, I began to get a feel for the images, motifs, or patterns that s eemed to be repeated. After reading all the transcriptions multiple times, I felt I was r eady to use one of the six tools of inquiry, situated meanings, which can lead to Discourse models. First, I read the transcriptions again to identify the images and patterns, that is, the situated meanings the participants assembled on the spot. I compiled a list by writing down each situated meaning and the pseudonym of the person who used it. Next, I put these situated mean ings back together in groups based on common themes, or overa rching categories, such as having many duties and responsibilities, helpful strategi es, the frustration and complexity involved, and the impact on affect. Then I arranged the situated meanings w ithin the groups based on their common features, which are subordinate to the broader categories, such as being serious, memorizing, talking louder, working hard, helping others, changing things, and improving. After the situated meanings were arrange d in groups, I asked myself the question Â“what theory do the participants hold that makes them use just these particular meanings?Â” The answer to this question allo wed me to formulate the Discourse models, that is, the participantsÂ’ theories, or expl anations of the values connected to their experiences. Discourse models explain the situ ated meanings words have in a particular context. Discourse models, Gee (2005) stat ed, Â“flow from our experiences and social positions in the worldÂ” (p. 88). In addition, Discourse models project our views about what is moral and what actions are possibl e in order to alleviate social problems. Discourse models mediate between indivi dual interactions on a local level and Discourses on a global level. Discourses are one of the six tools of inquiry used in
93 Discourse Analysis, which include Â“situated meanings, social languages, Discourse models, intertextuality, Discourses, and ConversationsÂ” (p. 110). After I formulated the Discourse models, I wrote up the analysis of two of them. In my analysis, I used the following four t ools of inquiry: intertex tuality, Conversations, social languages, and Discourse s to describe how the participants constructed activities and identities and recognized the activities and identities that others were constructing through their discourse. Using in tertextuality helped me show how one text alluded to, or cross-referenced another text, that is, field notes or another interview. Using Conversations helped me analyze how a text alluded to themes or debates extant in society in general. Using social languag es allowed me to show how particular participants used certain va rieties of language for certain purposes. The fourth tool, Discourses allowed me to analyze how th e participants discursively positioned themselves, others, and me. It allowed me to show how the participants combined language and other things to perform and rec ognize certain id entities. Discourse Analysis allowed me to answer the first research quest ion, that is, what is the relationship between the participantsÂ’ discourse prac tices and their performance. Three Characteristics of Multimodal Literacy To analyze the performance, with its complex multimodal grammar, I created three characteristics from the features Cowan ( 2003, 2005) drew on to analyze Latino visual discourse: the contextual, the intertextual, and the social features. I used these three characteristics to analyze the multimodal gr ammar of the play as a situated, dynamic performance. First, the contextual characteri stic described the sociohistorical context as well as the contemporary social context in which the play was situated. Second, the
94 intertextual characteristic de scribed how the participants drew from various modes of meaning to produce a unique multimodal text. In addition, the intertextual characteristic described events that initiated actors into the Mexican performance Discourse. Third, the social characteristic described the literacy events on two levels. The level one social characteristic described a unique literacy event in which several Latina adolescents constructed meanings. This event occurred after school, but was connected to an assignment for class. The level two social char acteristic described th e literacy events in which the Latino/a adolescents and the Latina teacher constructed knowledge and meanings in the play production. The Contextual Characteristic Cowan (2003, 2005) analyzed Latino visu al discourse using the contextual feature, which describes the existence of icons and the visual literacy events in which the Latino adolescentsÂ’ responsiveness to the icon s developed. In this study, the contextual characteristic described the literacy events th at caused the Latino/a adolescents to become aware of the playÂ’s sociohisto rical context. In addition, the contextual characteristic described the literacy events that caused th e Latino/a adolescents to become more aware of the contemporary context of the play. Wh en, for example, only 5 of the 12 students who normally participated in rehearsals appe ared on day 4, Mario noti ced and referred to the absences asking the teacher, Â“How many people didnÂ’t come to school?Â” The Intertextual Characteristic Cowan (2003, 2005) analyzed Latino visual discourse using the intertextual feature, which revealed how Latino adolescents relied on r ecognizable icons to generate new visual texts with meanings others fam iliar with such icons could read. In addition,
95 CowanÂ’s intertextual feature described how th e Latino adolescents were initiated into the cultural knowledge the icons represented and used their knowledge to read the icons. In this case study, the intert extual characteristic desc ribed how the participants drew from various multimodal meanings to produce a unique multimodal text. The intertextual characteristic also explained how the Latino/a adolescents were initiated into the cultural knowledge represented in the Me xican performance Discourse. In the play, the modes of meaning were linguistic (the sc ript) and visual (paintings, costumes and props, a videotape of a former groupÂ’s play), audio (a music CD, sound effects), gestural (the stamp of a foot, a downward-pointed finger, body language), spatial (the physical environment where rehearsals were held), and multimodal, or a combination of two or more modes of meaning (The New London Group, 1996). The Social Characteristic CowanÂ’s (2003, 2005) social feat ure described the visual literacy events in which the Latino adolescents created, exhibited, a nd exchanged their draw ings. In this case study, the social characteristic described literacy events in which two different groups participated. The level one social characterist ic described a unique l iteracy event in which several Latina adolescents constructed meani ngs. This event occurred after school, but was connected to an assignment for class. The level two characteristic described the literacy events in which the Latino/a adol escents and the Latina teacher constructed knowledge and meanings in the play production. Since I wanted to id entify the events in terms of their causal conditions, their context, and the strategies th rough which they were managed, I analyzed these literacy events using Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss,
96 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990), and nested them within the level two social characteristic. Grounded Theory To analyze the literacy events in which the actors and the teacher participated, I used Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strau ss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Grounded Theory involves the analytic processes of open coding and axial coding. Open Coding Strauss and Corbin (1990) defined open coding as Â“the process of breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing, and cate gorizing dataÂ” (p. 61). Open coding is an Â“analytic process by which concepts are id entified and developed in terms of their properties and dimensionsÂ” (p. 74). This anal ytic process entails asking questions about the nature of the data in a process known as constant comparison. After copying and pasting the transcribed field notes from Word documents into Ethnograph, I read the data over and over, constantly questioning what each bit of data represented, comparing each bit of data with other bits, and ultimately assigning a name to each separate phenomenon. I eliminated several codes, which named pheno mena that had already been given names. This process resulted in a codebook of 67 codes to describe the entire set of observations. Using these codes, I then bega n the process of axial coding. Axial Coding According to Strauss and Corbin (1990), axial coding is a process in which data are recombined in new ways. Recombining data in new ways, Strauss and Corbin explained, means Â“ making connections between a category and its subcategories Â” (p. 97 [italics in original]). The focus of axial c oding is to identify a cat egory in terms of the following features: its causal conditions, its context, strategies through which it is
97 managed, and the results of t hose strategies. These features are known as subcategories because of their relationship to the category, or phenomenon. How these subcategories relate to their categories is known as the paradigm model. In axial coding, I identified categories by looking for thei r causes, and considering the specific context as well as the strategies used to manage the category and the results of those strategies. These features were id entified as subcategories of the phenomenon. I identified how these subcategories relate d to their category, which is known as the paradigm model. I establishe d categories for sequences of actions, for example on day 11, I identified the category Â“Layer ing Coaching and Repetition.Â” Plan to Insure Credibility Triangulation Triangulation is the confirma tion of research findings through the use of different forms of evidence (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Stake, 1995). To understand the relationship between the participantsÂ’ disc ourse practices and their pe rformance, three forms of evidence were used: observations, semi-structured interviews with the students, and the studentsÂ’ written reflective responses. The pur pose of including three forms of evidence was to understand the relationship of different types of inquiry to different contexts. Different forms of evidence, as Patton (2002) stated, can yield different results because different types of inquiry are sensitive to different contexts. Â“Understanding the inconsistencies in findings across different ki nds of data,Â” Patton st ated, can assist in understanding the connection be tween the research design and the phenomenon of interest (p. 556).
98 Understanding the relationship between the Latino/a adolescentsÂ’ discourse practices and their performance promised to be useful in moving the field forward by contributing to the development of a theory of performance learni ng that is culturally responsive and supports academic learning. In ad dition, I believed the findings might offer suggestions for further research on after-sc hool performance learning for Latino/a ELLs. Role of the Researcher As Stake (1995) noted, the case study resear cher can play different roles. In the role of observer, Stake noted, the researcher catches the experience of being in the setting, records it in de tail, and reconstructs the setting with natura listic description so that readers are able to expe rience an equivalent level of understanding. A reconstruction of the setting respec ts the emic tradition, Stake note d, and reflects the participantsÂ’ perspectives and world. Â“By re specting the details of that world,Â” Dyson (1997) stated, writers make the lives and worlds of other people more easily reached (p. 169). Respecting the participantsÂ’ world, Dyson st ated, means paying atte ntion to portraying the participantsÂ’ actions as a descriptive account of events. A descriptive account of events, Merriam (1998) stated, means renderi ng an interpretation of the context that enables readers to establish thei r own connection to the setting. Interpretation involves creat ing associations between and among the details. As Stake (1995) noted, constructivist perspectives state that, despite the impossibility of determining reality outside of experiencing it firsthand, the ro le of the researcher is to construct accurate understandings based on the reality that the researcher has come to understand through her own thinking processes. In terpretation always involves particular biases, which are the result of Discourses.
99 Freedom from bias is impossible to achi eve (Patton, 2002). I tried to monitor bias through the use of open-ended questions in th e interviews, transcri bing interviews word for word, including alternative perspectives member checks, and writing a fieldwork journal. Presentation of the Case As Merriam (1998) stated, presenting the case involves deciding Â“how much concrete description to include as opposed to analysis and interpretation and how to integrate one with the other so that the narr ative remains interesting and informativeÂ” (p. 234). Furthermore, Merriam stated, the goal s hould be to provide a balanced case study report consisting of particular descripti on, general descriptio n, and interpretive commentary. Particular de scription consists of direct quot es and narratives drawn from observations. According to Merriam, general desc ription is necessary to verify Â“patterns of distribution,Â” that is, to make connections across the data to he lp the reader decide if Â“the vignettes and quotes are typical of the data as a wholeÂ” (p. 23 5). Interpretive commentary, as Merriam stated, gives meaning to the data so that the reader can understand the relevant points that lead to the authorÂ’s conclusions. To follow MerriamÂ’s guidelines in presen ting this naturalistic case study, I devoted approximately two-sixths of the final report to particular descript ion in the opening and closing narratives. I devoted one-half of the re port to interpretive, or analytical commentary in the Discourse Analysis and the analysis of the characteristics of the performance. I also devoted one-sixth of the repor t to general description that drew from the Discourse Analysis to determine whether the students validated their performance.
100 Trustworthiness The concept of trustworthiness is the a ssurance provided to consumers of research that they can rely on a study for accuracy (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). To establish a case studyÂ’s accuracy, Merriam (1998) stated, a re searcher must exert effort to produce a study that is both valid and re liable. Validity and reliability in qualitative research, Merriam stated, means the study was conducted according to ethical principles. In this case study, ethical principles we re used to present and coll ect the consent documents, to conduct the interviews, to record observati ons, to store the da ta, to analyze the documents, to write the report, and to base the conclusions on the data. Wolcott (1994) stated that validity coul d be considered the major strength of qualitative research. With the goal of produc ing a valid study, Wolcott (1994) offered several points to guide qualitative researchers: a) listen much more than talk, b) aim for accuracy in field notes, c) start the writing early, d) provide detaile d description, e) report completely, f) be honest, g) obtain feedback, h) aim for balance, and write truthfully. To assure a studyÂ’s trustworthiness, Me rriam (1998) stated, it is important to include an explanation of how efforts were made to ensure that the results were Â“consistent with the data coll ectedÂ” (p. 206). This is the res earcherÂ’s guarantee that the study has been conducted according to rigorous procedures, as Merriam stated, and that the Â“findings match realityÂ” (p. 201). In orde r to match the findings with reality, I used WolcottÂ’s guide for producing a valid study. To follow WolcottÂ’s (1994) guide for pr oducing a valid study, I followed nine steps. First, I attempted to ask a greater number of information questions to elicit the
101 participantsÂ’ perspectives. Second, I aimed for detailed description in field notes. Third, I transcribed field notes and inte rviews daily. Fourth, I provide d detailed narratives in the final report to contextualize the Discourse Analysis. Fifth, I reported the events as they occurred with many quotations. I also include d participantsÂ’ interv iews and reflective responses. Sixth, I was straightforward a bout all aspects of the study, even citing mistakes, such as asking a yes/no question in stead of an open-ended question. Seventh, I offered member checks to verify the interviews with the participants. Eighth, I aimed for balance between description and analysis. Finally, I reported the truth about what happened in the case. Qualitative research, Merriam (1998) stat ed, attempts to understand the world from the perspectives of those who live in it. Researchers understa nd that readers will judge the trustworthiness of their work, and therefore, they must have standards and rigorous methods. Credibility is a question of addressing whether or not a rigorous, systematic method of inquiry has been followed. Linc oln and Guba (1985) observed that the researcher-as-instrument insures reliability by means of preparation. As Merriam (1998) noted, reliability is not whether the results ca n be replicated, but Â“w hether the results are consistent with the da ta collectedÂ” (p. 206). External validity in qualitative case study, Merriam (1998) stated, is unlike external validity in quantitative research. Qu alitative case study is selected not for its power to produce generalizations, but for its ab ility to understand the particular. A case is chosen so that the researcher can present th e particular in depth, not Â“what is generally true of the manyÂ” (p. 208). Studyi ng the particular Â“in depthÂ” means that a case is studied
102 for how it functions, or operates. Reader s reach conclusions through Â“vicarious experience,Â” Stake (1995) noted, in ot her words, through their own private understandings. Conclusion The purpose of this naturalistic case st udy was to explore what happened when 7th grade Latino/a ELLs and their Latina teacher pr oduced a play in an after-school program and to determine the relationship between the participantsÂ’ discourse practices and their performance. In addition, the aim was to desc ribe the characteristics of the performances and to find out if the participants validated their performance, and if so, how. This design was created to explore this uni que case in depth. The answers to these questions promised to move the field forward by developing a m odel of after-school performance learning that might support ELLsÂ’ academic engagement and knowledge.
103 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS Introduction In this chapter, I present the results of a naturalistic cas e study, the purpose of which was to explore what happened when 7th grade Latino/a ELLs and their Latina teacher produced a play in the context of an after-school program and to determine the relationship between the partic ipantsÂ’ discourse practices and their performance. In addition, I sought to describe th e characteristics of the performances and to find out if the participants validated their pe rformance, and if so, how. I organized the chapter into four sections. In the first section, I tell the story of the play production. The total number of days for the play production was 23, of which I observed 20. The story has three sections, Ri sing Action: Days 1 to 9, Turning Point: Days 10 to 17, and Resolution: Days 18 to 20. Wi thin each section, I ha ve selected one or two days that I consider pivotal to unde rstanding the context of the participantsÂ’ discourse practices. I selected days 7 and 8 to illustrate relationships and teamwork in the context of the rising action. I selected these two days because by day 7, all of the main charactersÂ’ roles had been cast. In addition, on both days, the rehe arsals were conducted on the stage, offering a picture of how things tr anspired in that context. I selected days 10 and 12 to portray conflict and ch ange in the context of the turning point. These two days represented the middle of the action, when challenges arose, including a student who
104 sought to get into the play, and the need to use other rehearsal sites. Lastly, I selected day 19, to depict seriousness in the context of the resolution. In the second section of this chapter, I present the findings of the Discourse Analysis. The Discourse Analysis revealed the existence of seven Discourse models. From these seven, I selected Discourse models 1 and 2 for the report, because I believed they best represented the Discourse of the pla y, that is, they were most salient in this DiscourseÂ’s ways of thinking, feeling, va luing, believing, and acti ng. The two Discourse models I selected were the Discourse mode l of being responsible, and the Discourse model of playing around. I present the findings of the Discourse Analysis of each of these two Discourse models in the second section of this chapter. In addition, I included the respective data for each of the two Discourse models on Tables 1 and 2, following the report of each Discourse model. Finally, I included the data for the remaining five Discourse models on Tables 3 through 7 in Appendix F. In the third section, I present my anal ysis of the characteristics of the performances. In the fourth se ction, I present my analysis of the actorsÂ’ validation of the final performance and invalida tion of their performances dur ing the rehearsals. Lastly, I summarize the findings presented in these four sections in this chapterÂ’s conclusion. The Story of the Play Production I developed the story of the play prod uction using field notes, or observations, which I transcribed from steno books daily du ring fieldwork, typed into Word documents, labeled, and saved by date. I read the data in these Word documents again and again and selected the rehearsals that be st represented the story of th e play production as it unfolded during fieldwork. After reading th e data repeatedly, the plot of the play production became
105 transparent. I divided the plot into three distinct sections: the Rising Action, the Turning Point and the Resolution. To begin this chap ter, I tell the story of the play production. However, before telling the story, I provide some context in three areas: first, the origin of the play Esperanza Renace [Esperanza Reborn]; second, a repor t of what the teacher said about the vote to do the play; and third, a brief synopsis of the novel Esperanza Rising (Muoz-Ryan, 2000) on which the play was based. For two years, the 7th grade ELLs adapted novels read in class and turned them into scripts, which they modified and rehearsed in the after school program Then, at the end of six weeks of rehearsals, the ELLs performed the plays for their parents. One of the former ELLs had written a script for a play entitled Esperanza Renace [Esperanza Reborn] adapted from the final chapter of the novel Esperanza Rising (Muoz-Ryan, 2000), and each succeeding year the participants modified his script. The Vote In the fifth and final teacher interview, I learned how the play came to exist through a voting process Mrs. R. initiated. I did not observe the actual vote because it occurred before the first day of fieldwork. The fifth interview with the teacher occurred after the actors wrote their reflective responses about the final performance, the only writing they did concerning the play production. In their responses, a majority of the actors validated the final performance and invalidated their perf ormances during the rehearsals. I asked the teacher about her reaction to this disparity a nd she responded by telling me that the students voted to participate in the play rather than take a final exam in the class. Explaining how she proposed the play, Mrs. R. said, Â“I gave them a choice. Do you want to do a final exam on Esperanza, compre hensive? Or do you wa nt to do a play? And
106 everybody said, Â‘we want a play.Â’Â” Mrs. R. em phasized the studentsÂ’ preference saying, Â“they chose their destiny. This is what they wanted to do. I gave two choices. We had a vote.Â” Voting for the play was voting to comp ly with Mrs. R.Â’s authority and rules. Through the vote, Mrs. R. constructed the play as a binary, that is, complying with her authority or risk dismissal and imitating her mode ls or risk failure. Mrs. R. said she gave the four boys and one girl she dismissed from the play two or three opportunities, but Â“they decided they did not want to act.Â” Â“ActÂ” wa s Mrs. RÂ’s situated meaning assembled on the spot, which meant, Â“Comply with my rules.Â” The teacherÂ’s situated meaning in the word act alluded to DianaÂ’s situated meaning in it em 5 (Table 1), Â“you have to act.Â” In her words, Diana positioned herself as aware of th e expectations that Mrs. R. set up, namely that acting meant complying with Mrs. R.Â’s rule s. Mrs. R.Â’s construc tion of the play as a binary involved her in the cons truction of the discourses. On Day 6 in the classroom, the teacher held up a stack of permission letters that had been sent home and returned to her. She r ead the letter that informed parents about the after-school activity and asked them to sign and return it to the teacher. The teacher referred to this letter in the fifth and final in terview saying, Â“So there was an agreement. It was verbal and a contract wher e the parents signed.Â” In Mrs. RÂ’s view, the students were responsible for abiding by the te rms of the contract, and if th ey did not, their failure was their own fault. Equity was ensured, Mrs. R. explained, by creating en ough parts for all her classes in the second presenta tion. A few students who were di smissed from the play, or chose not to participate in the play were in the second presentation. In the fifth interview, Mrs. R. suddenly performed a speech in which she addressed me as one of the dismissed students saying, Â“T his is what you chose for your final grade.
107 ItÂ’s not that I want to have you or I donÂ’t want to have you, th is is your grade. Do I want you to get a hundred? Yes, I do want you to ge t a hundred. Am I going to compromise with you and do what you want to do? No.Â” Positioned as a deviant student by the teacherÂ’s second-person mode of address, I sensed that she was perfor ming a strict teacher identity for my benefit. Later in the interview, Mrs. R. offered a completely different performance as a diligent learner saying, Â“As the years go by, if I had been ab le to proceed with this it will get better and better and better because I learned how to accommodate certain situations better than I did last year.Â” As the audience, I experienced a shift in orientation to each of the teacherÂ’s performances. Moreover, I imagined Mrs. R. also experienced a shif t as she responded to the ways she was positioned by my performance. As Conquergood (1991) stated, Â“performance-centered research takes as both its subject matter and method the experiencing body situated in time, place, and historyÂ” (p. 187). The performance paradigm privileges embodied experience and can also make the researcher interpreted as a Â“displaced, somewhat awkward reader of texts,Â” (p. 188). Throughout the fieldwork process, I sensed that not only was I reading te xts, others were read ing and interpreting my performance as a text. Although I strove to cul tivate a researcher Discourse in the field by dressing casually and sitting with the ELLs in the classroom and cafeteria, one day in the cafeteria I was caught off guard standing (a typical teacher pose). A smiling Asian ELL teasingly warned the others that there was Â“a teacherÂ” present. I automatically denied his discursive positioning saying, Â“IÂ’m not a te acher,Â” explaining that I was an unpaid researcher and, pointed to my steno pad as proof that I was an observer. Then, as if negotiating my identity he declared, Â“YouÂ’re ha lf a teacher!Â” Based on this incident and
108 others, I surmised Mrs. R. had announced my arrival and my identity beforehand and used it as a reason to exhort the ELLs to be on their best behavior. In performance-centered research, C onquergood (1991) stated, the power dynamic changes when the researcher moves from a detached observer to a co-performer role. One of the first entries in my fieldwork journal concerned the Â“palpable sensationÂ” I felt of being distrusted. I surmised that the c ontext of the nationwid e debate over the Sensenbrenner Bill in Congress and 377 Latino/ a students absent from school were reasons why Luis did not seem to like me. When I said hello and smiled, his response was not friendly, and I wondered how I would be able to get him to trust me. His girlfriend Diana also responded coolly to my greeting. Then, halfway through my interview with Diana, she began to critique the playÂ’s appropriation of her after-school autonom y, and I realized that their coolness to me at the beginning was that they considered my presence as one of the reasons for Mrs. R.Â’s plan to put on a pl ay. As Conquergood explained, the highly nuanced social dramas of life achieve meaning through performance and ethnographers must be coperformers to make sense of those embodied meanings. The participants used language and embodied actions to draw me into a highly nua nced social drama about the meaning of the play. A Summary of the Novel Esperanza Rising (Muoz-Ryan, 2000) recounts th e story of Esperanza Ortega, the authorÂ’s grandmother, who left Mexi co just as the Great Depression struck. EsperanzaÂ’s father was a wealthy landowner in Mexico, and Esperanza had few worries and many servants. One servant who worked for Seor Ortega was Miguel, a young man the same age as Esperanza. One day Esperan za told Miguel the disparity in their status
109 precluded any close relationship. However, Espe ranzaÂ’s life took a turn when her father was killed and her home destroyed. She had to leave her injured grandmother behind and move to the United States where she becam e an agricultural worker. Despite almost insurmountable barriers, Esperanza started ov er in California wher e she found inspiration in others who shared the sa me struggles and in the various symbols infused with the values and beliefs of her father and gra ndmother. In the end, EsperanzaÂ’s former arrogance was replaced with strength and co mpassion. The actorsÂ’ pseudonyms and the characters they portrayed are arranged in a graphic organizer, which appears in Appendix E. Rising Action: Days 1 to 9 I arrived on the first day during the final mi nutes of class. Each day the after-school program began when students met in the cafeteria for attendance and snacks before going to the gym or classrooms for activities. The teacher, Mrs. R., told me she always walked to the cafeteria to meet the students who were in the play production group and walk with them to the classroom. The group walked to gether talking and laughing. After a brief meeting in the classroom, the group either cond ucted the rehearsal there or returned to the cafeteria to rehearse. On the Stage: Day 7 Obtaining the stage for rehearsals alwa ys seemed to present a problem, but the participants seized any availa ble opportunity to use it. On day seven, while Mrs. R. set up the narratorÂ’s microphone, the actors talked and laughed on stage. Suddenly, Mrs. R. said, Â“We need to start!Â” Having assigned stage-crew tasks, such as moving chairs, to the boys, Mrs. R. said, Â“Luis, IÂ’m going to ask you to handle the curtains.Â” In response, Luis
110 complained loudly, Â“I donÂ’t want to handle the curtains!Â” Despite his complaint, he took a position behind the curtains next to the ropes. With the curtains closed for the introductions and everyone in place, Luis produced a loud be lch. Â“Please donÂ’t do that ,Â” Mrs. R. stated, Â“ItÂ’s in poor taste. Please donÂ’t waste any more time.Â” Then Mrs. R. addressed the two girls standing in front of the curtai ns saying, Â“Please begin.Â” Laura recited the introdu ction in English and, when she was finished, Mario commented saying, Â“You got to talk loud.Â” Le na, who had to recite the introduction in Spanish, moved the microphone around to determine the most effective position. Her eyes rolled upward as she tried to recall the next word. The familiar phrases came quickly, but there were frequent pauses. Mrs. R. told her to repeat and Lena asked, Â“Otra vez, Miss?Â” [Again?]. Lena repeated her part, but Mrs. R. still disapproved, shaking her head. Lena complained, Â“Miss, no puedo.Â” [I canÂ’t]. Â“YouÂ’re going to have to practice more at home,Â” Mrs. R. said. Â“Curtains!Â” Mrs. R. said, and Eva (E speranza I) entered, expressing disbelief about her missing money, suspiciously vanish ed along with Miguel. Mrs. R. asked for more gestures and moved offstage saying she wanted to test if th e actorsÂ’ voices were loud enough to be heard from where the audien ce would sit. Mario (Alfonso) entered and said his lines, but Mrs. R. heard noises a nd asked, Â“WhoÂ’s in the back fooling around? You need to be behind the curtain.Â” She moved the actors to the front of the stage so they could be seen and heard better. Mario repeat ed his entrance with a relaxed stroll. Â“Walk firmly,Â” Mrs. R. said. Mario repeated the lines and actions. Â“Is that better?Â” he asked. Mrs. R. did not respond.
111 Tania (Ramona, also known as Mam, EsperanzaÂ’s mother) entered and said her lines. Â“Curtains,Â” called Mrs. R. when Tania had finished. She directed the boys to be ready to move the chairs onstage for the ne xt scene. Sitting down on a chair behind the podium, the narrator began to read, but Mrs. R. told him he had to stand. She also said the curtains should only be opened halfway. U ttering her question in a monotone, Eva (Esperanza I) entered, and then listened as Mrs. R. modeled the questionÂ’s rising intonation. Eva and Lisa (Josefin a) could not be heard, so th e chairs were rearranged to face the audience. In a monotone, Lisa (Jos efina) predicted the reason for MarioÂ’s (AlfonsoÂ’s) arrival and her concern about her ch ildren, Â“Sern los bebs!Â” [It must be the children!]. Mrs. R. explained how to portray haste as Lisa exited. With a leisurely gait and a smile, Eva (Esperanza I) ambled towards Mario (Alfonso), saying her lines in a monotone, and Mr s. R. chided her, Â“YouÂ’re worried about your Mom. DonÂ’t walk so casually.Â” Eva and Ma rio listened as Mrs. R. exaggerated the accented final syllables in the question Â“Le pas algo a mam?Â” [Did something happen to Mother?] They repeated their lines and then Mario took EvaÂ’s elbow and led her off stage. Next, the narrator a nnounced, Â“A bus from Los Angeles has arrived.Â” At these words, Luis (Miguel) entered the stage, st retching his arms to show his fatigue and smoothing his rumpled shirt. Chiding some actors, Mrs. R. said, Â“D onÂ’t play with these microphones. LetÂ’s do it from the beginning.Â” They had not rehearsed the complete play, so the request seemed to suggest that Mrs. R. wanted to perfect the first half before moving to the latter half of the play. The rehearsal began again and Mrs. R. talked to Eva (Esperanza I), Â“Walk
112 straight, secure, firm.Â” Mario and Tania said th eir lines, but Mrs. R. targeted Eva for help, modeling the ideal intonation. The scene ended with the call, Â“Curtains!Â” Eva (Esperanza I) and Lisa (Josefina) re-ena cted their scene, Li sa still reciting her question in a monotone. Â“ItÂ’s a question,Â” e xplained Mrs. R., and she directed Lisa (Josefina) to turn her body to look in MarioÂ’s (AlfonsoÂ’s) dire ction, and then to turn back to Eva. In order to help her understand how to express worry, Mrs. R. translated the line into English: Â“Something must have happened to the children!Â” Then, Mrs. R. turned and addressed all the actors in a loud voice, Â“Guys youÂ’re actors and actresses. You have to fake it,Â” she said. Turning back to Lisa, she urged her to move quickly towards Mario as she exited saying, Â“You have to look at him.Â” Â“I am looking at him,Â” Lisa insisted. Trying to make the playÂ’s context real for her, Mrs. R. said, Â“ThatÂ’s your husband, you know.Â” LisaÂ’s facial expression registered protest over Mrs. RÂ’s suggesti on that Mario was her Â“husbandÂ” and she complained with indignati on in her voice, Â“Miss!Â” Mrs. R. replied, Â“Do you want to do this part or what?Â” Lisa responded, Â“Yes,Â” and Mrs. R. replied in an even tone, Â“Then do it.Â” Eva (Esperanza I) said her line, but Mrs. R. expressed dissatisfaction saying, Â“No, no. You need to do thisÂ…Â” demonstrating the action of simultaneously walking and saying the words. Eva copied this and Mrs. R. validated her actions saying, Â“That was much better. You need to be firmer.Â” Mario (Alfonso) said his lines and Eva said hers very quietly. Mrs. R. modeled it in a loud voice and Eva repeated it much louder than before. Next, Mrs. R. told Mario, Â“Look at he r,Â” and Mario replied (in almost the same way Lisa had responded just a few lines prev iously), Â“ThatÂ’s what IÂ’m doing.Â” All the actors looked at the teacher and Diana peer ed around from behind the curtain. Mrs. R.
113 simply said, Â“Curtains,Â” and th e boys moved the three chairs out for the bus station scene. Â“The chairs must be on the left side,Â” she added. The boys only had a few seconds to move th e chairs into position before Mrs. R. announced, Â“Curtains!Â” They opened and Mari o (Alfonso), Linda (Hortensia), and Eva (Esperanza I) were sitting on the chairs. R oberto (the narrator), who was supposed to narrate their arrival at the stat ion, was silent. In an even tone, Mrs. R. said, Â“You need to be saying something by now.Â” Roberto read th e lines describing their arrival at the bus station. Then, Mrs. R. (as she had been doing all along) announced, Â“A bus from Los Angeles has arrived.Â” Luis entered, acting tired and travel-worn, smoothing his rumpled shirt. Mario and Luis greeted one another lik e brothers, raising their forearms, clasping each otherÂ’s elevated hand, and pushing their shoulders against one another. The bus station scene portrayed MiguelÂ’s return from Mexico where he had gone to rescue Abuelita and reunite her with Esperanza, her granddaughter, and Ramona (Mam), her daughter (played by Tania). In order to finance his trip, Miguel (played by Luis) had taken EsperanzaÂ’s money. Mrs. R. modeled how Luis (Miguel) should reassuringly pat LindaÂ’s (Hor tensia) arm. Eva (Esperanza I) entered and stamped her foot, demanding her Â“stolenÂ” money from Luis. Mrs. R. showed Luis how to act shocked at EvaÂ’s aggressive demand. Â“You need to b ack up. DonÂ’t be nice,Â” she explained. Luis repeated the line Â“Por lo menos, saludame pr imeroÂ” [At least say hello first]. Then he asked the teacher, Â“Like that Mrs. R?Â” Â“I al ways see you doing this,Â” Mrs. R. said and modeled an outstretched point ed finger, Â“why canÂ’t you do it today?Â” Demonstrating the gesture, she said the lin e, Â“Wait and the fruit will fall in to your hand.Â” Luis said the line and gestured by pointing his finge r at Eva. Â“Exactly,Â” said Mrs. R. Next, Luis escorted
114 Patricia (Abuelita) onto the st age, but the teacher said his action was too soon and he had to wait for his cue, which was EvaÂ’s line Â“Qu miro? Es un fantasma? Debe ser un fantasma!Â” [What do I see? Is it a ghost? It must be a ghost!]. When Ramona, EsperanzaÂ’s mother, became a farm worker, she was not accustomed to the harsh working conditions in the fields and contracted Valley Fever. The play depicted how Abuelita was reunited with Ramona as she convalesced from her illness. Â“Curtains,Â” announced Mrs. R., and wh en they opened, Luis (who also played the doctor for a few days) sat facing Tania (Ramona) on the left side of the stage. Patricia (Abuelita) and the other charac ters stood on the right. The narrator began reading about the keepsake pebbles in AbuelitaÂ’s pocket. Mrs. R. had to prompt Nina (Isabel) with her lines. Roberto, the narrator, lost his place in the script and Mrs. R. sounded impatient as she said, Â“Come on, please,Â” while walking over to the podium and showing him the place. Then the group walked over to greet the convalescing pa tient, Tania (Ramona, Mam), whose back was toward them. Patric ia (Abuelita) tapped Tania gently on the back indicating her arrival and a surprise d and amused Tania cheerily asked, Â“Mam, eres t?Â” [Mother, is that you?]. Patricia (Abuelita) stumbled over her lines. Mrs. R. muttered with irritation, Â“I know the whole play and they still donÂ’t know it.Â” Luis, w ho played two roles, Miguel and the doctor, sat facing Tania as the doc tor. He said his lengthy series of lines explaining about Valley Fever and Roberto, the narrator, laughed at his difficulty. All of a sudden, Eva blurted out, Â“We skipped la manta ,Â” referring to the blanket scene, in which Esperanza proudly shows Abuelita her newly finished blanket. The narrator, who
115 was supposed to keep everyone on track with his narration, suddenly re alized his error, exclaiming Â“Ah, my god.Â” Mrs. R. ignored the error and simply sai d, Â“Okay, the chairs need to be moved away. Come on, guys. Those curtains need to be closed, boys.Â” Next, in the rising scene, Diana played the role of Esperanza II, (the t eacher had told me that Diana asked to play the role and the teacher cast her after day 1). As Diana (Esp eranza II) and Luis (Miguel) entered the stage, the teacher reminded Dian a, Â“When you get past the curtains, talk.Â” Then she said, Â“Now letÂ’s do it again. ItÂ’s not done right.Â” Meanwhile the actors on the left hand side of the stage were quiet and se rious, watching the acti on. The play called for Luis to look at Eva with escepticismo [skepticism]. Mrs. R. tried to help Luis produce the appropriate perplexed expre ssion and said Â“Are you for r eal?Â”a question Miguel might ask as he looked suspiciously at Esperanza. The narrator read and tapped the microphone to imitate the sound of the earthÂ’s heartbeat. As Diana and Luis walked off toge ther, Mrs. R. smiled with amusement that they were girlfriend and boyfriend. Â“Thos e two!Â” she mused. Next, the narrator announced Â“Hoy es el cumpleanos de Esperanz aÂ” [Today is EsperanzaÂ’s birthday]. After telling Diana (Esperanza II) and Nina (Isabel), who faced the line of actors, to stand to the side so the line could be seen, Mrs. R. m oved into the cafeteria to observe the singing of Las Maanitas a traditional Mexican birthday song, and to see if she could hear the actors. Next, as Patricia (Abuelita), worked on a knitted quilt, she recalled the symbolic significance of the mountains and valleys in her knitting pattern for Diana (Esperanza II) and Nina (Isabel). Nina coul d not remember her lines and received a prompt and some
116 help on how to direct the lines to Diana. Th en, Diana said the last lines of the play, Â“Isabel, nunca temas empezar de nuevoÂ” [Never be afraid to star t over]. Diana stood as she said the lines, addressing the first ha lf, Â“nunca temas,Â” to Isabel, and turning, addressed the second half, Â“empezar de nuevo,Â” to the audience. When she turned to the audience, Diana held up her arms and said Â“empezar de nuevo,Â” rolling her eyes upward as if bored. DianaÂ’s phrase brought the play to a close. Leaving her position in the cafeteria, Mrs. R. walked towards the stag e saying, Â“We donÂ’t have anymore time. Nina, you need to review those lines.Â” An Audience: Day 8 On day 8, several Latina students, who atte nded another afterschool activity, were invited by Mrs. R. and showed up at the rehearsal. They sat at the cafeteria tables in silence to watch the rehearsal on stage. Mrs. R. intr oduced the Latinas to th e cast saying they were acting as the parents, and asked them to liste n for any noises such as backstage voices or chairs being moved. Mario approached me and said smiling with a twinkle in his eye, Â“I donÂ’t want these girls here. IÂ’m shy.Â” When I asked him if he would feel shy when his parents were in the audience, he replied, Â“I know my parents.Â” Then he returned to the stage and both he and his brother, Luis, jumped onto the stage and sat with the other actors. A lot of talk and laughter ensued among the actors as Mrs. R. attempted to straighten out the microphone system. MarioÂ’s microphone reverberated as he spoke into it, eliciting laughter from the othe r actors. A large pile of papers and trash littered the center of the stage and Mrs. R. called out in a loud voi ce, Â“Luis, I need some help,Â” asking if there was a broom. Luis pointed to the back of the stage and ran in that direction. He returned
117 with a push broom and started sweeping the st age, assisted by Diana who picked up large ragged sheets of newsprint. Most of the actors were sitting in the wi ngs, ready to make their entrances. Mario and some of the girls sat on the right and Eva sat on the left. Roberto and Mrs. R. finally had the microphone system set up when Mario put his microphone on his CD player projecting music into the cafeteria. Mrs. R. said, Â“Please donÂ’t get me in trouble because then we have to cancel this stuff. I need your cooperation.Â” Laura, who was ready to recite the Eng lish introduction, asked, Â“Can I start now?Â” Mrs. R. handed her a microphone and said, Â“Y ou need to use this.Â” Laura read the introduction recounting the story of Espera nza and the misfortunes that befell her, including her struggle to su rvive as a farm worker. Taking the microphone from Laura, Lena began to recite the Sp anish introduction, but she slouch ed and held the microphone in a vertical position, which distor ted her words. Mrs. R. opened the curtains and reached out to take the microphone saying, Â“You have to hold the mike like this,Â” positioning the microphone in a horizontal position. Lena tried again. Holding the microphone in a horizontal position, with her paper resting on it, LenaÂ’s posture was straighter and her pronunciation was clearer. When she finished, she laid the mike on the stage and walk ed to the back of the stage. The curtains opened and Roberto, the narrator, suddenly sa id, Â“Hey, give me the microphone.Â” Laura and Lena started to leave the stage to go into the cafeteria, but Mrs. R. said, Â“Girls, weÂ’re practicing as if we have parents. You have to go back there,Â” meaning th at they had to sit in the wings with the other actors. Laura and Lena were friends who seemed to purposely avoid a lot of social inter action with the other actors.
118 Meanwhile, the boys made some noises and Mrs. R. scolded them saying, Â“Boys! Stop it, please. Stop!Â” She told them to close th e curtains and made Lena repeat the last line of the introduction. Then she called for the curtains to reopen. The narrator, Roberto, walked on stage and said his lines: Â“Miguel es el unico que pudo hacer esto. De eso no hay duda!Â” [Miguel is the only one who could have done this. Of this, th ere is no doubt!]. Mrs. R. asked him to repeat it. Roberto held the microphone and walked across the stage, swinging the mike cable in front of him, ma king a swishing noise like the wind. After his lines, Roberto went back to the pod ium to read the narratorÂ’s part. Alone on stage, Eva (Esperanza I), said he r line, but Mrs. R. stated, Â“You did two things wrong. What was number 1? Number 1 was you were supposed to follow the XÂ’s.Â” She pointed with her foot to the taped X marks on the stage. Â“Number 2, youÂ’re talking. You need to look at the audience.Â” Mrs. R. began modeling EsperanzaÂ’s lines. Suddenly, from behind the curtains, some of the actors said, Â“Hey, Miss,Â” and pointed out that the lines Mrs. R. was modeling were not the corr ect lines. Mrs. R. waved her hand, in an exasperated way. Â“Whatever youÂ’re going to say, I donÂ’t have the script. LetÂ’s not waste any more time!Â” Mrs. R. continued to describe how Espe ranza was supposed to act saying, Â“DonÂ’t laugh!Â” She wanted Eva (Esperan za I) to act in an angry, defiant way. She demonstrated gestures saying, Â“You go like this,Â” and Â“Attitude You can be a girl with attitude!!Â” As Eva took her position to repeat the scene, Mr s. R. added, Â“If you donÂ’t do it perfectly, we canÂ’t do it!Â” As Eva entered saying her lines, Mrs. R. gestured with her fingers pressed together as if she were pulling a smile off her face.
119 Next, Mario (Alfonso) entered and said his lines. Mrs. R. responded, Â“Very good, but louder.Â” Mario complained, Â“No puedo, maestr aÂ” [I canÂ’t, teacher]. In order to make it seem easier, Mrs. R. compared his line s to a simple apology saying, Â“You can say, Â‘siento mucho,Â’ [IÂ’m very sorry].Â” She added, Â“You better feel it, otherwise you canÂ’t act.Â” Then, Mrs. R. noticed Tania (Mam) missed her cue saying, Â“Helloooo?? Tania entered and addressed Eva (Esperanza I), suggesting a possible reason for MiguelÂ’s taking EsperanzaÂ’s money. Directing her, Mr s. R. said, Â“Come around to Esperanza and turn around. YouÂ’re upset. DonÂ’t smile.Â” Sh e showed Tania how to say the lines, and then, in a louder voice, announced the end of the scene with the word Â“Curtains!Â” Using the scene change to make a genera l announcement to the actors sitting in the wings, in a loud voice Mrs. R. said, Â“Eve n walking has to be done properly.Â” Then Roberto, the narrator asked: Â“Can I go now Mrs. ?Â” Mrs. R. said, Â“Curta ins,Â” and turned to the Latinas in the audience: Â“Can you hear the chairs?Â” She referred to the boysÂ’ moving of the two chairs for the next scene. Then, turning toward the narrator, she said, Â“Repeat that. Louder!Â” The narrator repeated. Â“Yes!Â” said Mrs. R., Â“can you do it with a little more emphasis?Â” Lisa (Josefina) sat on the right, with Eva (Esperanza I) on the left. Lisa reached out and patted EvaÂ’s arm in a consoling manne r saying, Â“No te preocupesÂ” [DonÂ’t worry]. Mrs. R. told Lisa to lean a little more towa rd Eva and say the line louder. Eva repeated the line. Meanwhile, Mario (Alfonso), who wa s supposed to wait on the left, sat down on a chair next to the student who was pulling th e curtains. Instantly, Mrs. R. said, Â“No, you canÂ’t be sitting there!Â”
120 The action continued with Lisa (Josefina) walking toward the left where Mario (Alfonso) stood. Mrs. R. corrected Lisa saying, Â“You did it before he (the narrator) said it! What is this mess? No, no, no. You need a little more action and drama.Â” Next, Mario entered and addressed Eva (Esperanza I), but forgot several of his lines. Chiding him, Mrs. R. said, Â“There is no reason for you to forget lines, Mario.Â” Â“ItÂ’s too long,Â” Mario complained. Â“You need to take pages home to study,Â” countered Mrs. R. Mario repeated his lines. Â“I donÂ’t see the heart. ThatÂ’s Â‘talk,Â’ we need to Â‘ act,Â’Â” Mrs. R. explained. Then she cued the stage crew to close the curtains. Scolding Mario and Luis for not doing th eir stage-crew jobs, Mrs. R. said, Â“EverybodyÂ’s sitting. These chairs are supposed to be moved.Â” Turning to the Latinas, Mrs. R. asked, Â“Did you hear the chairs?Â” Th en the curtains open ed and someone could be seen running across the stage. Again turn ing to the Latinas, Mrs. R. asked, Â“Did you see her running?Â” Mario, Linda, and Eva sat on three chairs, but Mrs. R. listened to the narratorÂ’s lines explaining that the three a rrived at the bus station and sat on a bench. Mrs. R. disagreed with their sitting down on the Â‘bench,Â’ and told the three students: Â“Actually thatÂ’s wrong. The line says that youÂ’re arriving-youÂ’re already sitting.Â” Stamping her foot, Mrs. R. said, Â“Stop! WeÂ’re going to look like fools in front of the parents!Â” Then Mrs. R. made the actors repeat the scene beginning with the opening of the curtains and the three actors walking toward the benc h at the bus station. They sat down on the chairs. Mrs. R. said: Â“Now the act ion matches the narrator Â’s words!Â” Mrs. R. went over and showed Roberto, the narrator, how to say lines and stand at the podium. He repeated the lines. Mrs. R. said, Â“ThatÂ’ s much better. Louder. You have to bring the mike right in front of your face. ThatÂ’s when you hear the thump.Â” Then she said, Â“Come
121 on LindaÂ” (Hortensia). The teacher demonstrated how to look at Luis (Miguel). She said: Â“YouÂ’re going to walk like that?Â” She imita ted LindaÂ’s walking, which was casual and slow, not like a concerned moth er, who has not seen her son in a long, long time. Mrs. R. explained to Linda: Â“You have not seen him for a year!Â” Luis (Miguel) swaggered toward the cente r of the stage, his loose, unfastened black Fila athletic shoes making a thumpi ng noise on the wooden floor. Mario (Alfonso) rose from the bench and greet ed his Â‘sonÂ’ in an unintere sted monotone Â“Hola, hijo! Cuanto me alegre de verte! [Hello, son! How happy I am to see you!]. Mario said the lines as if they were declarative, not excl amatory. In contrast, Linda (Hortensia), who rose next, greeted her Â‘sonÂ’ Luis (Miguel) with a broad smile. Next, Luis said his lines to Linda and then to Eva (Esperanza) without expression, and Mrs. R.Â’s face registered irritation and impatience. She turned around and walked toward the tables where the Latinas were sitting and watching the play. Sh e pointed to the Latinas and said in a loud voice: Â“TheyÂ’re parents today! Slapping the cafeteria table, she said, Â“Do you really call this acting? Sorry! This is not going to cut it! You know what IÂ’m saying?Â” Standing on stage among the other actors, Luis repeated Mrs. R.Â’s last phrase in a low voice: Â“You know what IÂ’m saying?Â” Then he said, Â“I donÂ’t care.Â” With emphasis on the word Â“do,Â” Mrs. R. said, Â“I do care. You have it or you donÂ’t. You have to care.Â” The students listened silently. No one spoke for several seconds. Then Luis broke the silence with the question: Â“Can we start now?Â” There was a brief two-to-three-second pause, and then the rehear sal continued. The exchange between Luis and Mrs. R. seemed to affect the actors by making them try harder to follow Mrs. R.Â’s direc tions. Eva (Esperanza I) re cited her lines with
122 greater emphasis and emotion. Roberto narra ted that Esperanza Â“abrazaÂ” [embraces] Abuelita, and Eva (Esperanza I) and Patricia (Abuelita) did so. Following their reunion, Abuelita was introduced to the other characters. As they shook hands, each actor stepped backward into the outer circle so that each character that addr essed Abuelita in turn could be seen by the audience. Next, Nina (Isabel, a young girl) entered skipping toward the group, but Mrs. R. was dissatisfied. She took Nina by the hand and t ogether they returned to NinaÂ’s original position. Then they both skipped in hand-in-h and saying NinaÂ’s line. All the students laughed, including Mrs. R. and Luis. This inte raction seemed to re lieve some of the tension caused by the earlier disagreement be tween Luis and Mrs. R. Next, Mrs. R. directed Patricia (Abuelita) to wait for the na rrator to say the line Â“s he takes stones out of her pocketÂ” before pretending to give them to Nina. Then the group of actors walked over to where Tania (Ramona, EsperanzaÂ’s mother) sat. Calling for the sceneÂ’s repetition, Mrs. R. said, Â“Narrator, le tÂ’s do it again.Â” The group went back to its original position and Patricia called out Â“JosefinaÂ’s first!Â” showing her knowledge of the script, which called for LisaÂ’s char acter to begin the introduction scene with her entrance. Lisa (Jos efina) entered from the center back of the stage. Next, Linda (Hortensia) introduced the characters. When the introductions had been made, the group walked over to where Ta nia (Mam) sat. Luis (the doctor) and Tania (Mam) sat on chairs facing each other, and the characters expressed happiness at seeing Mam in such good health. Nina (Isabel) came skipping in from the le ft. Roberto, the narrat or, called out that the scene was wrong and the script differed. Bu t Mrs. R. disagreed with his assertion
123 saying, Â“WeÂ’re done with that.Â” Nevertheless, she went over to th e podium to check the script. Â“No, look,Â” Roberto said, reading the lin es to her. Mrs. R. read the script and agreed saying, Â“The script is wrong. YouÂ’re ri ght.Â” Mrs. R. verified the narratorÂ’s correct interpretation of the script by pointing to the narrator a nd saying, Â“Okay, say what youÂ’re supposed to say.Â” Roberto repeated his part and Mrs. R. sent Nina (Isabel) to come in from the right. Although some of the actors were still dissat isfied and there was some grumbling, the complaints died down, and the scene proceed ed. Patricia (Abuelita) said her lines, memorized but mumbled. Mrs. R. directed Luis who was also acting in the role of the doctor, telling him how to gr eet Patricia (Abuelita) with a firm handshake. Luis (the doctor) gave the report on Valley Fever, MamÂ’s condition. Next, in the rising scene, th e role of Esperanza change d and was played by Diana. Luis, now Miguel, and Diana (Esperanza II) entered very slowly. Looking on, Mario acted like a director, issuing a blunt command to his brother saying, Â“Acustate tÂ” [Lie down]. Luis (Miguel) lay down on the stage. Diana (Esperanza II) explained that, with patience, he would be able to hear the promised soundÂ—the earthÂ’s heartbeat. Then, Roberto tapped the microphone to simulate the heartbeat: thum p, thump, thump, thump. Diana twirled around Luis like a phoenix bird, wearing a green skirt and green t-shirt. Mario announced the end of the scene. Â“C urtains!Â” he said. He jumped off the stage and came over to the cafet eria table where I was sitting and sat next to me. Wearing a tank top, he tossed his t-shirt around in hi s hands while he watched the action on the stage. The curtains opened and someone ran ac ross the stage. Mrs. R. asked the audience of Latinas, Â“Did you see someone running?Â” Patr icia (Abuelita), Nina (Isabel), and Diana
124 (Esperanza II) sat on chairs. Patricia was pret ending to knit and Mrs. R. directed her how to show her expertise saying, Â“L ike if you were blind.Â” Nina (Isabel) experienced trouble enunciating her line: Â“Las puntadas mias esta n todas torcidas!Â” [My stitches are all twisted!]. The narrator descri bed EsperanzaÂ’s actions. Diana (Esperanza II) turned first to Nina, saying, Â“Isabel, never be afraid,Â” and then turned to th e audience and said, Â“to start over.Â” Still sitting next to me on the table, Mari o turned to me and asked, Â“Do you think weÂ’re doing okay?Â” Just as I said Â“yes,Â” the curtains opened to the cast lined up across the stage and Mario flew off the cafeteria table and jumped up onto the stage with his t-shirt waving around. He took his place in the line a nd one of the actors (no one was assigned to this job until the end, so each day a differe nt actor said the names) announced in both languages: Â“Vamos a presentar los participante s. Now we will presen t the participants.Â” The first actorÂ’s name was called and the ac tor walked to the center of the stage. Mrs. R. stood on the cafeteria floor and said to the actor: Â“You canÂ’t walk like that.Â” Each actor walked to the center of the stage and announced the role they played. Lena did not announce her part, which was the introduction in Spanish, but instead verified its title with Mrs. R.: Â“Introduc in? Bueno.Â” At the end, Mrs. R. told the student from the beginning ESOL class who wa s pulling the curtains to walk in the center of the stage, say Â“curtainsÂ” and take a bow. All the actors and Mrs. R. clapped for him. He smiled. Then they all joined hands and Mrs. R. called out, Â“One, two, three,Â” and they swung their arms up together a nd brought them down and bowed. Â“LetÂ’s go back to the classroom,Â” Mrs. R. announced. The actors and the audience left the cafeteria. Linda and some of the other girls were last, and walked along smiling
125 and laughing as they sang the Spanish vowel sounds with an echo: Â“ahÂ…ah, eyÂ…ey, eeÂ…ee, ohÂ…oh, ooÂ…oo.Â” Back in the classroom, some of the act ors picked up their backpacks and other belongings and left right awa y. Lena, Laura, and Patricia stood together in a group and read DianaÂ’s two posters that she did in adva nce of the deadline date. One of the posters was entitled Â“Mrs. RÂ’s work made me tiredÂ” and there were sleep ing yellow Tweety birds wrapped in blue blankets in al l four corners of both posters The posters were a synthesis of the books they read and the projects they did all year. The girls looked at the posters and then they asked Mrs. R. if they could take some books home. Mrs. R. said okay, but they had to write their names and the book title on the board. The girl s then went over to the counter and found the books they wanted a nd wrote the titles on the board under their names. The Turning Point: Days 10 to 17 On days ten and twelve, securing the stag e was impossible. On day ten, there was a teachersÂ’ meeting in the cafeteria. On day tw elve, there was another teachersÂ’ meeting, followed by another groupÂ’s prior reservation, which forced the Esperanza Renace group to alter its plans. Therefore, on days ten and twelve, the rehear sals took place in different contexts, which had a noticeable effect on the participantsÂ’ discourse practices. Disagreement: Day 10 On day ten, when the group met, the air conditioning had been turned off in the classroom, so Mrs. R. asked, Â“How many want to do it outside?Â” The vote was unanimous in favor of fresh air, so the re hearsal moved to the si dewalk in the cool shadow of the building.
126 As the rehearsals advanced, Mrs. R. a dded validation to the layers of coaching and repetition to entice the actors to imitate her intonation, and the actors competed for Mrs. R.Â’s validation. After Eva (Esperanza I) angrily stamped her foot as she said, Â“No puedo creer lo!Â” [I donÂ’t believe it!], Mrs. R. told her to re peat it. Â“Again?Â” Eva asked with surprise. When Eva repeated the line, Mrs. R. stated he r approval with a loud, emphatic Â“Yes!Â” Next, Mario (A lfonso) entered and Mrs. R. critiqued his walk saying, Â“You have to be firm. Walk straight, firm.Â” Mario repeated his entrance, and seeking the same validation Eva had received, asked eager ly, Â“Like this?Â” However, Mrs. R. just repeated her last word, Â“firm.Â” From this exch ange, it appeared Mrs. R. did not validate a gesture or intonation unless it met with her standards. Next, Eva mumbled her lines and Mrs. R. said, Â“This is for real. Firm wal k. Back again. Loud.Â” Eva repeated the action, and this time Mrs. R. validated EvaÂ’s actions saying, Â“Yes!Â” On his cue, Â“A bus from Los Angeles has arrived,Â” Luis (Miguel) entered, stretching and yawning as if he had just awak ened from a nap. In a parody of Mrs. R.Â’s frequent requests for repetition, Mario (Alf onso) said, Â“Re-do it.Â” MarioÂ’s discourse practice seemed to be a signal to his brothe r to engage in more of these discourse practices because then Mario (the father, Al fonso) and Luis (the son, Miguel) enacted a parody of their charactersÂ’ greeting sayi ng, Â“WhatÂ’s up, man?Â” Â“You guys are wasting time,Â” Mrs. R said, with a note of irritation in her voice. In addition, she observed LuisÂ’s use of a script and warned him, Â“YouÂ’re going to have to memorize those lines.Â” As soon as his lack of memorization was mentioned, LuisÂ’s playfulness ended and frustration surfaced as he began a series of co mplaints. First Luis blamed his brother, Â“I donÂ’t have a paper. He threw it away!Â” But Mr s. R. ignored LuisÂ’s comment and turned
127 to the next scene, the group introduction. It seemed that LuisÂ’s relationship with his girlfriend, Diana, was not going smoothly and as they entered, Mrs. R. critiqued their actions saying, Â“You guys need to look at each other. YouÂ’re not even looking at each other.Â” Suddenly, Luis physically forced he r to look at him by pulling her arm, but Mrs. R. instantly reprimanded him saying, Â“Ladie s are delicate and sophisticated. TheyÂ’re soft.Â” In response, Luis complained again sa ying, Â“She canÂ’t even look at me.Â” LuisÂ’s despondency and frustration seemed to be in fluenced by what he viewed as DianaÂ’s slight. Finally, in response to th e groupÂ’s lackluster singing in Las Maanitas a traditional Mexican birthday song, Mrs. R. calle d for a recitation of the lyrics, but once again Luis complained, Â“I donÂ’t even know the song.Â” Mrs. R. announced they would skip the fi nal scene and rehearse the entire play a second time. She gave the actors a minute to get into their places before saying, Â“One, two, three, curtains!Â” With accusatory words fixing the culpability for EsperanzaÂ’s stolen money on Miguel, Roberto (the narrator) made his entrance. In the original script, RobertoÂ’s line was part of th e narration, but Mrs. R. told him he would have a walk-on part. She modeled a raised index finger that fell and firmly pointed toward the floor. While she modeled, noises could be heard, which she censured saying, Â“You guys need to stop it.Â” Accompanied by the pointing gest ure, the words Â“Miguel era el unico que pudo hacer esto. De eso, no hay duda!Â” [Migue l was the only one who could have done this. Of this, there is no doubt] assumed gr eater power and meani ng. Finally, Mrs. R. offered Roberto additional advice saying, Â“T alk to the audience.Â” When the rehearsal ended, Mrs. R. told the actors to prepare for their bows saying, Â“E verybody in line. In
128 line, guys, please. Your feet are not in line with the shoes. Trust me, your parents are going to say, Â‘look at that line.Â’Â” But Lu is disagreed. Â“No, theyÂ’re not,Â” he said. A Decisive Event: Day 12 Day twelve was a Thursday, and the st age was reserved for the theater group. Dividers partitioned the cafeteria in two, and the Esperanza Renace rehearsal occurred in the second room. The Esperanza Renace actors perched on circular seats attached to a long cafeteria table facing a wall. The talk and laughter reverberated in the large highceilinged area. Eva (Esperanza I) was absent, so Mrs. R. asked Diana if she would play the part, but she refused. Then she called Luis and said, Â“I need to speak to you.Â” Next, she sent Mario to the other end of the tabl e for making noise, and he obeyed because he had seen her talk to Luis. An alliance between Mrs. R. and Luis seemed apparent from previous events, such as on day eight, when the stage was lit tered with trash and she had called on Luis saying, Â“Luis, I need your help.Â” I had seen the teacher in numerous phone conversations with parents in her office. (Once she told me she had spoken to all thirty-eight studentsÂ’ parents at least once). I had al so witnessed a conversation in the cafeteria between Mrs. R. and Diana and overheard Mrs. R. talking about someone saying, Â“Do you think sheÂ’s doing thisÂ…Â” but that was all I heard. It s eemed as though relationships with special understandings existed between certain actors such as Luis, Diana, and the teacher. In addition, Luis consistently refused to be interviewed during the study. He only agreed after I asked the teacher for his fatherÂ’s phone number and set up an appointment to meet at his home for an interview, which occurred in the presence of his parents and brother. When I asked if he was a director, he glanced first at his brother befo re answering Â“yes.Â”
129 Lena and Laura stood side-byside in the area in front of the wall to present the bilingual introduction. Lena recited her in troduction in Spanish. Her long ponytail was pulled forward over her left shoulder, and sh e had a habit of smoothing the ponytail with her fingers. After Lena, Laura was supposed to recite; however, Mrs. R. was arguing with the narrator saying, Â“Listen to me, Roberto. No excuses. You need to be ready.Â” Then Laura recited the introdu ction in English. Laura was dressed in a dark t-shirt, jeans, white sneakers, and large hoop earrings and held a white t-shirt in scribed with glitter that spelled Â“Army Girl.Â” As LauraÂ’s part ended, Mrs. R. repeated her warning to Roberto saying, Â“If you donÂ’t do it, IÂ’m going to go back to the classroom. No whining.Â” Laura parodied Mrs. R. saying, Â“No whining.Â” Mrs. R.Â’s face registered displeasure, and she unplugged the compact disk player to signa l her displeasure. Laura repeated the introduction, followed by Lena who hesitated over some lines, at which point Mrs. R. said, Â“Help each other, please.Â” Next, PatriciaÂ’s (Abuelita) off-stage que stion, Â“Esperanza, tu recuerdes la historia del fnix?Â” [Do you remember the st ory of the phoenix?] was answered by Mrs. R. substituting for the absent Eva saying, Â“S, recuerdoÂ” [Yes, I remember]. Then Laura entered as the understudy for Eva (Esperanza I). Mrs. R. had told me of MarioÂ’s crush on Laura, and one day I saw Laura and other gi rls reading a note writt en on a desk saying, Â“Mario likes Laura and Laur a likes Mario and I should not laugh at my boyfriend.Â” Upon reading the note, LauraÂ’s expr ession registered displeasur e. As an understudy for Eva (Esperanza I), she would have to face Mario. La ura held her script hi gh to cover her face, and Mario entered, addressing he r with an exaggerated guttura l growl, Â“Esperanza!Â” Mrs. R. looked at him with a shocked and appall ed expression, but Mario protested, Â“You told
130 me to act, didnÂ’t you?Â” Mrs. R. replied in an even tone, Â“YouÂ’re being silly. IÂ’m sick of it.Â” Laura (playing Esperanza I for Eva who wa s late) and Lisa (Josefina) rehearsed the fruit-sorting scene, while Mario (Alfonso) waited for his cue. Mario said his lines looking directly at Laura, trying to make ey e contact, but Laura covered her face with the script. Next, Mario held his hand to his ear signaling that he could not hear RobertoÂ’s reading. Then he strutted over to greet Luis who encouraged him saying, Â“Do it again! Do it again!Â” But Mrs. R. intervened saying, Â“ThatÂ’s enough, guys.Â” Previously, Mrs. R. had shown the actors how to position themselves in the group scene in which Patricia (Abuelita) was intr oduced. Mario (Alfonso) took one firm step into the center of the circle, shook hands with Patricia (Abuelit a) as he said his line, and then stepped back into the outer circle so th e audience could see the other actors. Mrs. R. directed Luis to position himself in order to allow the audience to see the others and summed up in a general comment saying, Â“What IÂ’m saying, you use common sense. HeÂ’s blocking the view of the audience.Â” Di ana (Esperanza II) looked on, waiting for her cue in the rising scene. Mrs. R. encourag ed Diana to take her time saying, Â“Slowly, slowly.Â” With a tone of deep sarcasm in hi s voice, Luis added, Â“Slo w. DidnÂ’t you get that part?Â” In LuisÂ’s question, we seem to hear the voices of teachers, and others, whose patronizing discourse practices often include questions such as Â“didnÂ’t you get that?Â” LuisÂ’s command, Â“slow,Â” seemed to echo thes e patronizing discourse practices. Ignoring LuisÂ’s sarcasm, Diana finished the scene. Ex tending her hand to help Luis up, they exited and went back to the table to talk.
131 After Las Maanitas Mrs. R. called for a second rehearsal saying, Â“Just now this was a disaster. Can we have a real rehearsa l and real acting? LetÂ’s leave the fooling around.Â” After LauraÂ’s introduction, she repeat ed, Â“No more fooling around.Â” In her introduction, Lena stroked her long dark ponytail. Suddenly, Luis blurted out loudly Â“Stop touching your hair!Â” Silence fell over th e group. No one had heard such a clear and direct comment from an actor before. Mrs. R. broke the silence with a quiet warning, Â“YouÂ’re going to be doing this [touching your hair] in the performance.Â” Eva (Esperanza I) arrived just in time for rehearsal two. Patricia (Abuelita) asked if she remembered the story of the phoenix, a mythical bird that is consumed by fire and rises out of its own ashes. The phoenix is a central symbol of the play and, like the phoenix; Esperanza is seen as rising from the ashes of a trag ic fire that destroyed her home to a new life. Upon hearing PatriciaÂ’s query about the story of the phoenix, Eva replied, Â“S, Abuelita. Yo recuerdoÂ” [Yes, grandmother. I remember]. Roberto (the narrator) entered and accused Miguel of st ealing EsperanzaÂ’s money. Mrs. R. modeled his angry gestureÂ—a firm arm ending in a downward-pointed finger. The incriminating words and gesture explained the reason for EsperanzaÂ’s anger. As Muoz-Ryan (2000) wrote, Esperanza was angry with Miguel fo r taking Â“what was not hisÂ” (p. 234). This anger was alluded to in Mrs. R.Â’s prol ogue prior to the final performance. Next, Eva was directed to move downstage so Mario would have to walk towards her and the audience would hear him. Tania (Mam) was absent, so Lena acted as her understudy. Then, however, Robert o missed his cue and Luis complained, Â“He canÂ’t talk loud enough.Â” Luis put his head on the cafeteria ta ble in a discouraged way and Mrs. R. looked over at him suddenly announcing, Â“IÂ’m going to write all the mistakes on this
132 script.Â” When Mrs. R. said she would not e mistakes, Luis raised his head, looking up with renewed interest. As I mentioned earlier I suspected Luis ha d an Â“understandingÂ” with the teacherÂ—an a llianceÂ—and, under the terms of this alliance, he would act as the director when the teacher gave him a signal. When she said she was going to take notes, Luis suddenly raised his head, and changed his actions. He began directing the other actors. When Mrs. R. announced she was going to be an observer, both Mario and LuisÂ’s roles changed. Mario began to a nnounce the cues for the curtai ns (previously one of Mrs. R.Â’s jobs), and Luis directed the actor s to start acting or stop misbehaving. With a sudden change in his role, Mari o announced, Â“Curtains, please!Â” With the imaginary curtains closed, his verbal cue told the actors to place three chairs on the stage for the bus station scene. Mario also assumed th e role of director and told Roberto to read louder. Roberto raised his voice so he could be heard. Then, Mario pointed to Mrs. R. to remind her to announce, Â“A bus from Los Angeles has arrived.Â” Luis (Miguel) had to react to other ch aracters in certain ways to convey the correct meaning. Because Mario and Luis were brothers, their actions did not require much analysis. However, as Linda (his Â“mothe rÂ”) ebulliently greeted him, he learned how to act comfortable and not to withdraw as sh e pinched his cheek in a gesture of affection. He also learned to recoil in amused surpri se at EvaÂ’s (Esperanza I) emotional words and angry stamp of her foot. To explain the r eason for using her funds, Luis disappeared, returning with Patricia (Abuelita) on his ar m. In the introduction scene, Mario extended his arm and shook PatriciaÂ’s hand with a se rious demeanor. Patricia and Eva greeted Lena (Mam), but had to wait for Roberto who missed his cue. As Roberto narrated, several of the actors shoute d in unison, Â“Louder!Â” Luis no ticed RobertoÂ’s lack of
133 attention and said, Â“Roberto, stop!Â” In the rising scene, Di ana and Luis had to wait for Roberto and Luis had to cue him saying, Â“Robe rto, go!Â” After LuisÂ’s cue, Robert moved farther away from the group and his loudness diminished. After rehearsing the bows, Mrs. R. sa id, Â“Now everybody sit down very quietly.Â” The actors faced her and listened. Â“Number one,Â” Mrs. R. said, Â“in the middle of the play, there were thirty-seven mistakes Â’cause you di dnÂ’t pay attention. Thir ty-seven mistakes in half a play! Number two; there was no ise and talking. WhatÂ’s going on here?Â” As she read the list, the actors remain ed quiet and listened. There was no emotion on their faces. Mrs. R. went on. Â“We canÂ’t afford to do this. The problem is the same mistakes since the first week. They havenÂ’t been corrected since day one. I donÂ’t want to be embarrassed. There is fighting, talki ng, pushing throughout. Making funny sounds. Roberto has to be told, Â‘Roberto, go!Â’ Everybody was talking when Laura was announcing. No one paid attention to her. Th ere are too many mistakes ItÂ’s Â‘I do what I want or IÂ’m going to quit. If I canÂ’t do what I want to do, then IÂ’m going to quit.Â’Â” In closing, Mrs. R. stated the goal was to eliminate errors, Â“Maybe ten mistakes tomorrow. On Monday, no mistakes.Â” Then, she proposed, Â“Anyone who wants to leave, should justÂ…Â” However, she did not finish because Diana blurted out, Â“Stay home.Â” As soon as she heard DianaÂ’s words, Mrs. R. as ked, Â“You guys want to quit? All who want to quit stand up.Â” Laura stood up. Luis saw her and instantly said, Â“S it down,Â” but Mrs. R. saw her too and said, Â“YouÂ’re out!Â” With that, everyone returned to the classroom. Laura seemed shocked and went to the water fountain where Patricia, Lisa, and Lena met to console her. In an attempt to make sense of things, Patricia told Laura her older sister said the same thing had happened in the play she was in two years earlier.
134 Resolution: Days 18 to 20 Each of the last three rehearsals wa s a unique event because the after-school program had ended a week earlier. On day eighteen, the rehearsal was held on stage behind the closed curtain during class time. St udents were eating lunch in the cafeteria, so the noise level was high. Day nineteen was th e dress rehearsal and the students stayed after school to rehearse the pl ay on stage. Day twenty was the day of the performance for the parents, and the actors eagerly took advantage of a s udden windfall of free time to rehearse on their own one last time. I selected day 19 for this case study because of the seriousness the actors demonstrated in the dress rehearsal. Seriousness: Day 19 The atmosphere on the stage radiated a sense of quiet importance as day 19, the dress rehearsal, began. After Esperanza Renace Mrs. R. had planned another presentation called PeopleÂ’s of the World Unlike the play, Esperanza Renace the Peoples of the World was a series of vignettes, in which the participants, mostly beginner-level ELLs, wore ethnic costumes a nd read scripts descri bing various countries. On day 19, the participants in the Peoples of the World presentation filled the seats in the cafeteria, acting as an audience for the Esperanza Renace production. When the play finished, the actors exchanged places and became the audience for the Peoples of the World presentation. The dress rehearsal for Esperanza Renace was held first. After Jazmin and Lena recited the introductions, R oberto entered, blaming Miguel for stealing EsperanzaÂ’s savings. In her long, yellow dress, Eva str ode across the stage and punctuated her line with an angry stamp of her f oot. Roberto, the narrator, stood st raight at the podium in his
135 formal black shirt and black pants. Mario (Alfonso) stood onstage in his loose khaki pants, matching long-sleeved kha ki shirt, and sneakers. Obvi ously tense and experiencing trouble with his lines, Mario wiped his ha nd over his face in anxiety. Although he faltered slightly, he recovere d and ended with his line: Â“N o se, vamonosÂ” [I donÂ’t know. LetÂ’s go] and, taking EvaÂ’s (Esper anza I) arm, they exited to the left. The curtains closed. When the curtains reopened, Mario, Linda and Eva filed out in a single line and sat down on the three metal chairsÂ—the bus station bench. R oberto narrated the description of MiguelÂ’s arri val on the bus from Los Angeles. Standing where the audience was sitting in the cafeteria, Mrs. R. criticized the lack of loudness saying, Â“I need to hear you from here.Â” She told Robert o, Â“Read the last part again.Â” Luis (Miguel) entered as Roberto described, stretching and ya wning as if he had just awakened. LuisÂ’s blue long-sleeved shirt and black baggy pants were disheveled. Playing the role of LuisÂ’s Â‘father,Â’ Mario (Alfonso) was th e first to greet Luis. Mario cl asped hands with his Â‘son,Â’ Luis (Miguel) in a show of deep affection. Playing the role of MiguelÂ’s Â‘mother,Â’ Linda (Hortensia) was the second to rise from the bench to greet Luis. She did not pi nch his cheek as she usually did, but instead just patted both her hands on his arms. Finally, the third person to rise from the bench and greet Luis was Eva (Esperanza I), who stampe d her foot and demanded the money that he allegedly had stolen from her. Dissatisfied wi th the level of anger Eva enacted, Mrs. R. told her to repeat the lines. Following her repetition, Eva asked, Â“Is that better?Â” Mrs. R. replied, Â“DonÂ’t smile.Â” Telling Eva (Esperanza I) that he had so mething better than money for her, Luis (Miguel) returned to the wings. When he reentered, Luis was escorting Patricia
136 (Abuelita). Although AbuelitaÂ’s face was fam iliar, Esperanza could not believe her eyes. She thought Abuelita was a ghost. When Patr icia and Eva hugged, they laughed and Mrs. R. admonished them, Â“Listen! No laughing. No time for joking.Â” Mario (Alfonso) greeted Patricia (Abueli ta) and immediately asked Mrs. R., Â“Is that good?Â” Mrs. R. made him repeat. He e xpressed discouragement and frustration and muttered, Â“CanÂ’t do nothinÂ’, man!Â” Mario repeat ed his line Â“Que gusta de verle.Â” And he asked Mrs. R., Â“Is that better?Â” Waiting impa tiently to say her lines, Linda (Hortensia) turned to Mrs. R. and asked, Â“Can I go now?Â” She said her lines in a loud, clear voice and gave a firm handshake. Then Lisa (Josefina) and Carlos (J uan) were introduced to the group. Eva (Esperanza I) asked Lisa where her mother wa s and Lisa told her. Linda (Hortensia) had to introduce Lisa and Ramn to Patricia (Abue lita). Linda was clearly the actor with the most confidence. Her words were loud and dis tinct, and she used her hands to gesture as she introduced Lisa and Ramn to Patricia saying, Â“Abuelita, te presento a Juan y JosefinaÂ” [Grandmother, I present to you Juan and Josefina]. Carlos, who played Juan (JosefinaÂ’s husb and), was a new recruit and only had one line. Mrs. R. had recruited Carlos at the last minute to play the role of Juan, JosefinaÂ’s husband. His single line was to gr eet Patricia (Abuelita) with the words, Â“Mucho gusto en conocerla, SeoraÂ” [Pleased to meet you]. As soon as he finished this line, Mrs. R. tried to correct him, but Linda di sagreed, explaining that the lin e had been changed from the original script. Linda went on to say that they had been re hearsing with the changed line. She went on to describe how Mrs. R. had conf used the lines that had been rewritten. To
137 conclude, Linda corrected Mrs. R. saying, Â“M iss, only Â‘mucho gusto, seora!Â’Â” LindaÂ’s clarification stood undisputed. Next, Nina (Isabel) ran out with a big smile and a bunch of flowers to present to Patricia (Abuelita). When she said her line Â“Hola, Abuelita, he oido hablar mucho de ustedÂ” [I have heard a lot about you], Mrs. R. said to Nina, Â“No, no. Go back!Â” Luis tried to buoy her confidence saying, Â“Loud! You go tta do it loud!Â” Nina re-entered and repeated her line. Luis looked at her and wh ispered in an encouraging voice, Â“Fuerte!Â” [Loud]. Lisa (Josefina, JuanÂ’s wife) gave Carlos (Juan) a tap on the arm with her hand as a signal that the scene was over and he had to exit to his right. The group split into two. Lisa, Carlos, Mario and Linda exited, while Patricia, Luis and Eva approached Tania (Mam) and Jazmin (now the doctor) who sa t on chairs on the left. Luis expressed annoyance because he expected to hear the na rration explaining the action as the group approached Tania. He said loudly, Â“Come on, Roberto!Â” Patricia (Abuelita) called to Tania, Â“R amona!Â” Sitting in a chair with her back toward Patricia, Tania (Ramona) did not expe ct to hear Abuelita, expecting Esperanza instead. Without turning around, she asked, Â“Esperanza, eres tu?Â” [Is it you, Esperanza?]. Patricia answered, Â“No, Ramona soy yo, Abuelita!Â” [No, itÂ’s me, Abuelita]. Tania (Ramona) rose and turned around, unabl e to believe her eyes. Incredulity and surprise in her voice, Tania greeted Patricia (Abuelita), Â“Mam, eres t!Â” [Mam, it is you!]. The girls hugged and clasped each otherÂ’s hands as they looked into each otherÂ’s eyes, smiling. There was reassurance in Patr iciaÂ’s confirmation, Â“S, soy yo, hija. Ya vineÂ” [Yes, itÂ’s me, daughter, I just came back].
138 When Tania asked Patricia how she was ab le to come, Patricia recounted, in a lengthy explanation, all the threat s to her successful escape and the events that led to her safe return. Patricia said he r lines rapidly and without he sitation. She asked Tania about her health and Tania introdu ced the doctor to explain th e causes of her condition. Jazmin (the Doctor) began her lines, but Mrs. R. interrupted her saying, Â“Stop.Â” Addressing some of the students, she aske d, Â“Can you guys be quiet?Â” Luis added, Â“Shut up!Â” But Mrs. R. cautioned him not to say that, saying Â“ah-ah-ah.Â” Jazmin started her lines again and said her part rapidly. Luis, Patricia, and Tania liste ned and looked at her with surprise on their faces. They whispered to each other, surprised that she had the lines memorized because Jazmin had been unprepared for previous rehearsals. The group turned around to watch as Nina (Isabel) skipped in from the right. Anticipating NinaÂ’s line, Mrs. R. said it aloud before Nina did, but the actors laughed quietly, some even repeating Mrs. R.Â’s incorre ct word Â“baile.Â” Mrs. R. smiled too. Then, skipping toward the group, Nina repeated the line: Â“Oh, Esperanza, el corazon me baila!Â” [My heart is dancing]. Eva (E speranza I) assured Nina that she felt the same way, Â“el mio tambienÂ” [Mine too]. Next, Eva ran off stag e and returned with the blanket to show Patricia (Abuelita). Patricia admired its si ze in a loud, clear voice saying, Â“Oh Esperanza, con esa manta puedes cubrir dos camasÂ” [With that blanket you can cover two beds]. The curtains closed. When the curtains opened again, Roberto read that several days before her birthday, Esperanza and Miguel were taking a walk in the mountains. Diana (Esperanza II) and Luis (Miguel) entered hand in hand. Luis looked into DianaÂ’s eyes as they entered and she looked up at him and reminded him of what happened one day in the mountains
139 back in Mexico: Â“Miguel, do you remember that if you lie down in the grass and stay very quiet, you can hear th e heartbeat of the earth?Â” Roberto narrated that Miguel looked at he r with skepticism. Luis raised a single dark eyebrow and pursed his lip s in a doubtful smile. As if to humor her, though, he lay down and inquired, with feigned navet, Â“O curida pronto, Esperanza?Â” [Will it happen soon?]. Diana (Esperanza II) answered with the same proverb Luis (Miguel) had used earlier, but this time she advised him to be patient saying, Â“Agua tate tantito y la fruta caer en tu manoÂ” [Wait a little and the fruit will fall into your hand]. The narrator tapped the microphone five times to simulate the earthÂ’s heartbeat. While Roberto narrated, Diana enacted th e scene. Lying on the ground near Miguel, Esperanza began to feel as if she were rising. Following the narration, Diana rose and raised her arms slowly up and down like a pho enix. Â“Stop running!Â” Luis abruptly called to some students backstage. Mrs. R. pulled th e curtains back and said, Â“You really need to stop!Â” Next, the curtains opened to a line of actors ready for Las Maanitas Diana and Nina stood facing the line. Swaying from si de to side and holding gift bags for Esperanza, the actors sang the traditional birt hday song. Unlike previous days, the actors did not bump one another. At the end of th e line, Roberto, Mario, and Carlos stood still and did not sway, but maintained a serious de meanor. At the end of the song, the actors approached Esperanza and said happy birt hday. The ELLs in the audience watched intently. In the last scene, Patricia had to say her line twice because Robe rto forgot to listen for the cue. When Diana said her lines wit hout much expression, Mrs. R. asked, Â“Is this
140 what youÂ’re going to do tomorrow?Â” The curtai ns closed. When they opened, the cast was assembled in a line, ready for their bows. Jazmin announced, Â“Next weÂ’re going to present the participants. A continuacin vamo s a presentar los participantes.Â” As they took their bows, some of the actors smiled and laughed, but Luis bowed in a serious way. So did Tania. One of the last to bow, Mari o glanced toward Mrs. R., always hopeful for some sign of validation. Discourse Analysis In this section, I present the report of the Discourse Analysis. I used Discourse Analysis (Gee, 2005) to analyze the written tran scriptions of the part icipantsÂ’ interviews and the actorsÂ’ reflective responses. I used G eeÂ’s heuristic to dete rmine which areas of reality the participants were using their langua ge to construct. In addition to the seven building tasks, there are six t ools of inquiry used to analy ze Â“how people build identities and activities and recognize id entities and activities that others are building around themÂ” (p. 10). I used one of these six tools of inqui ry, situated meanings, because they can lead to Discourse models, which mediate between the interactional work people do in carrying out the seven building tasks and Discourses as they function Â“to create the complex patterns of institutions and cultures across societies and historyÂ” (p. 71). First, I transcribed the interviews word -for-word and arranged them in stanzas. Next, I read and re-read the stanzas, keepi ng GeeÂ’s (2005) heuristic in mind and asking myself how both the participan ts and I were using language to construc t and recognize identities and activities in our conversations. I repeated the same process with the reflective responses and noticed how the acto rsÂ’ performances in their written texts differed from their oral text s. Through the visual proce ss of reading and re-reading, I
141 began to notice images, motifs, a nd patterns that were repeated. At that point, I felt I was ready to use one of the six tools of inquiry, situated meanings, which can lead to Discourse models. First, I read all of the transcriptions again to identify the images and patterns, that is, the situated meanings the participants assembled on the spot. I compiled a list by writing down each situated meaning and the pseudonym of the person who used it. Next, I put these situated meanings back together in groups based on common themes, or overarching categories, such as having many duties and responsibilities, helpful strategies, the frustration a nd complexity involved, and the impact on affect. Then I arranged the situated meanings within th e groups based on their common features, which are subordinate to the broader categories, such as being seriou s, memorizing, talking louder, working hard, helping othe rs, changing things, and improving. After the situated meanings were arrange d in groups, I asked myself the question Â“what theory do the participants hold that makes them use just these particular meanings?Â” The answer to this question allo wed me to formulate the Discourse models, that is, the participantsÂ’ theories, or expl anations of the values connected to their experiences. Discourse models explain the situ ated meanings words have in a particular context. Discourse models Â“flow from our expe riences and social posi tions in the worldÂ” (p. 88). In addition, Discourse models project our perspectives about what is moral and what actions are possible in order to solve social problems. Discourse models mediate between individual interactions on a local level and Discourses on a global level. Discourses are one of the six t ools of inquiry used in Disc ourse Analysis, which include Â“situated meanings, social languages, Discour se models, intertextuality, Discourses, and ConversationsÂ” (p. 110).
142 After I formulated the Discourse models, I wrote up the analysis of two of them. In my analysis, I used four tools of i nquiry: intertextuality, Conversations, social languages, and Discourses to describe how th e participants constr ucted activities and identities and recognized the activities and identities that others were constructing through their discourse. For example, using intertextuality helped me demonstrate how one text alluded to, or cross-referenced anot her text, such as the narrative, or another participantÂ’s words. Using Conversations helped me analyze how a text alluded to themes or debates extant in society in general. Us ing social languages allowed me to show how particular participants used certain varieties of language for certain purposes. The fourth tool, Discourses allowed me to analyze how the participants discursively positioned themselves and others in their written and or al texts. It allowed me to show how the participants combined language and other things to perform and recognize certain identities. Discourse Analysis allowed me to an swer the first research question, that is, to understand the relationship between the par ticipantsÂ’ discourse practices and their performance. The Discourse Analysis revealed the exis tence of seven Discourse models. From these seven, I selected Discourse models 1 and 2 for the report because I believed they best represented the Discourse of the play, that is, they were most salient in this DiscourseÂ’s ways of thinking, feeling, va luing, believing, and acti ng. The two Discourse models selected were the Di scourse model of being respons ible, and the Discourse model of playing around. These two Discourse models revealed the teacherÂ’s involvement in the construction of the discourses. In the follo wing section, I present the findings of the Discourse Analysis of these two Discourse models. In addition, I included the respective
143 data for each of the two Discourse models on Tables 1 and 2. These tables follow the report of each Discourse m odel. Finally, I included the data for the remaining six Discourse models on Tables 3 through 7 in Appendix F. Although the total number of actors in the performance was 13, only 12 participated in the play production. The last actor, Ramn, was added to the play during the dress rehearsal. However, even though Ra mn did not participat e in rehearsals and interviews, both he and his parents signed th e appropriate assent and consent forms. Discourse Model 1: Being Responsible The Discourse Analysis revealed that al l 13 actors in the play operated with the Discourse model of being responsible (Table 1). This Discourse model held that being responsible for taking a proper approach to th e play was reflected in ten rules: acting (intonation, gestures, etc.), attitude, memori zation, practice, rate of speech, volume and posture, perfection, extra work, costumes, help ing others, and making changes to improve the play. These ten rules represented the st andards in the Discour se of the play. The first rule of Discourse model one wa s being responsible for acting, that is, using effective intonation, facial expressions, and gestures. Being responsible for acting explained EvaÂ’s situated meaning in item 1 on Table 1, Â“To act more and to be serious, to say something to make something serious.Â” Ev a portrayed herself as responsible and as someone who followed Mrs. R.Â’s directio ns. Eva privileged the sign systems of intonation, facial expressions, and gestures used to expres s anger and defiance. EvaÂ’s words alluded to Mrs. R.Â’s directions on day 8 when she warned Eva, Â“DonÂ’t laugh!Â” They also referred to Mrs. R.Â’s words on day 2, Â“You canÂ’t smile. YouÂ’re supposed to be upset, with an attitude.Â” On day 7, Mrs. R. said, Â“I want action. I want drama,Â” and on
144 day 8 she said, Â“You go like this,Â” and dem onstrated the dramatic gestures Eva was supposed to use. The second rule of Discourse model one was being responsible for oneÂ’s attitudeÂ—taking Mrs. R.Â’s directions serious lyÂ—which explained the situated meanings Lisa assembled in her interview. In two situ ated meanings in item 2, Â“get serious,Â” and item 3, Â“they really got serious,Â” Lisa positi oned herself as respons ible and as someone who followed Mrs. R.Â’s directions. LisaÂ’s words alluded to Mrs. R.Â’s words on day 7 when LisaÂ’s facial expression registered protest over Mrs. R.Â’s suggestion that Mario was her Â“husbandÂ” and she indignantly protested, Â“Miss!Â” Mrs. R. replied, Â“Do you want to do this part or what?Â” Lisa responded, Â“Yes,Â” and Mrs. R. said in an even tone, Â“Then do it.Â” Lisa treated responsibility for her at titude as significant by naming it (and studying) as the top two ways to improve th e play. Lisa connected improving the play with having a good attitude, that is, learning to accept crit icism and follow directions. LisaÂ’s words alluded to Mrs. R.Â’s instructions on day 8 when Mrs. R. told Lisa that she must follow the narratorÂ’s reading saying, Â“You did it before he (the narrator) said it! What is this mess? No, no, no. You need a litt le more action and drama.Â” In item 3, Â“they really got serious,Â” Lisa tr eated the previous groupÂ’s attitude as significant by emphasizing it with the word really She connected the previ ous groupÂ’s success to their attitude. By using the pronoun they Lisa emphasized that the act ors in the previous play behaved well and accepted Mrs. R.Â’s directi on, both signs of taking the play seriously, and implied that the current actors were less like them. LisaÂ’s implication was that the
145 success of the performance depended on the acto rsÂ’ attitude, that is, accepting Mrs. R.Â’s directions and criticis m without protest. Being responsible for oneÂ’s attitude, or taking the play serious ly, also explained DianaÂ’s situated meaning in item 4, Â“acting and attitude,Â” which she assembled in her interview. Diana positioned herself as fully aware of Mrs. R.Â’s rules and as someone who followed her instructions. The word attitude alluded to Mrs. R.Â’s encouragement to Eva on day 8 when she said, Â“Attitude! You can be a girl with attitude!!Â” In DianaÂ’s situated meaning in item 4, Â“acting and attitude,Â” Dian a treated both acting and attitude as equally important in being responsible by jo ining the two with the conjunction and In DianaÂ’s situated meaning in item 5, Â“you have to act ,Â” Diana positioned hers elf as aware of the expectations that Mrs. R. set up, namely th at acting meant complying with Mrs. R.Â’s rules. DianaÂ’s words alluded to Mrs. R.Â’s words in interview 5, in which she said that those who were dismissed Â“decided they did not want to act.Â” The third rule of Discourse model one was being responsible for memorization. Being responsible for memoriza tion explained MarioÂ’s situated meaning in item 6, Â“I had to memorize all of my parts of the play,Â” and item 7, Â“you memorize your parts, and then memorize what to say and where to stand on the stage, and then you act.Â” In item 6, Mario used the personal pronoun I to position himself as having accomplished a lot in the daunting memorization task. Mario positioned himself as responsible, and someone who tried hard to carry out Mrs. R.Â’s assigned tasks. Mario treated the responsibility of memorization as significant by focusing on the discrete tasks: the scenes, lines, and positions on stage. Mario privileged actors Â’ knowledge by describing the tasks in the simple, organized way. MarioÂ’s words alluded to day 3 (the Saturday morning rehearsal)
146 when he read his lines from the script, clai ming he could not remember them. Mrs. R. stated, Â“I need to know within the next two or three rehearsals so someone will have time to memorize the lines.Â” MarioÂ’s words also a lluded to day 8 when he forgot several of his lines, and Mrs. R. chided him saying, Â“T here is no reason for you to forget lines, Mario.Â” Â“ItÂ’s too long,Â” he complained, but Mr s. R. insisted, Â“You need to take pages home to study.Â” Patricia positioned herself as faci ng dual responsibilities, acting and memorization, in the situated meaning she asse mbled in her interview in item 8, Â“to know how to act and remember the lines.Â” Patricia Â’s words alluded to Mrs. R.Â’s words on day 3, when she explained, Â“This is action. This is drama.Â” On day 3, Mrs. R. stressed her belief in the importance of memorizati on, which suggested greater fluency and expression, Â“Because youÂ’re reading, youÂ’re not acting.Â” On day 3, Mrs. R. invited PatriciaÂ’s sister to the reh earsal and, at one point, asked he r to demonstrate how to say PatriciaÂ’s lines with expression. Patricia watc hed her sister, and self -consciously repeated her lines with more expression. Eva and Diana also positioned themselves as responsible for memorization, and emphasized the responsibility with the words have to Eva assembled two situated meanings in her interview in item 9, Â“they have to learn the lin esÂ” and item 10, Â“they have to study everyday.Â” Eva positioned he rself as responsible, and as someone who followed Mrs. R.Â’s expectations that the actor s study their lines at home. Eva implied that the others had the same responsibility by using the pronoun they EvaÂ’s words alluded to Mrs. R.Â’s directions to the actors, such as her advice to Lena on day 7, Â“YouÂ’re going to have to practice more at home.Â” EvaÂ’s words also alluded to Mrs. R.Â’s words to Nina on
147 day 7, Â“You need to review those lines,Â” a nd to Mario on day 8, Â“You need to take pages home to study.Â” Diana also positioned herself as responsible for memorization, and emphasized the obligation with the words have to in her situated meaning in item 11, Â“You have to memorize it,Â” which she assembled in her interview. After the performance, Diana assembled another situated meaning in item 12, Â“we had to memorize the parts of the play.Â” In this situated meaning in her refl ective response, Diana pos itioned the actors as equally responsible, emphas izing their collective responsibility by using the pronoun we DianaÂ’s emphasis on shared responsibility allude d to Mrs. R.Â’s words at the end of day 3, when she complimented the actorsÂ’ for thei r work, and emphasized the importance of memorization for everyone, Â“Papers need to disappear. Scripts need to disappear. No more reading.Â” DianaÂ’s situated meanings also alluded to Mrs. R.Â’s words on day 10 when Luis played around and Mrs. R. obser ved him using a script and warned him, Â“YouÂ’re going to have to memorize those lines.Â” The fourth rule of Discourse model one was being responsible for practice. Being responsible for practice explaine d LisaÂ’s situated meaning in item 13, Â“They practiced their parts and acted too.Â” Lisa positioned hersel f as someone who was aware of and followed the rules Mrs. R. referred to in the video. LisaÂ’s words alluded to Mrs. R.Â’s words on day 1 when Eva laughed nervously when she was told sh e had to repeat her lines. Mrs. R. warned the entire group saying, Â“ThereÂ’s going to be hou rs and hours of work until it looks like the video.Â” Mrs. R. made the vide o, a symbol of the former gr oupÂ’s effort, relevant to the groupÂ’s responsibility to practice.
148 Being responsible for practice explaine d the two situated meanings Lisa assembled in her interview in item 14, Â“study their partsÂ” and item 15, Â“when itÂ’s real.Â” Lisa portrayed herself as responsible, and as someone who valued Mrs. R.Â’s directions. Lisa connected achieving realism in a perfor mance with practice, implying that practice resulted in a more fluent multimodal text and meaningful performance. LisaÂ’s words alluded to the day 7 rehearsal and Mrs. R.Â’s explanation of LisaÂ’s intonation, Â“ItÂ’s a question.Â” The teacher directed Lisa (Josef ina) to turn her body to look in MarioÂ’s (AlfonsoÂ’s) direction, and then turn back to Eva. To he lp Lisa understand how to use intonation to express worry, Mrs. R. translat ed the line into English: Â“Something must have happened to the children!Â” Then, she turn ed and spoke to all the actors in a loud voice, Â“Guys, youÂ’re actors and actresses. Y ou have to fake it.Â” Lisa, however, was not able to Â“fakeÂ” something she did not compre hend. To Lisa, practice involved Â“studying,Â” that is, comprehending the correct emotions an d combining the elements of the modes of meaning to create a Â“realÂ” performance. Being responsible for practice explaine d RobertoÂ’s situated meaning in his reflective response in item 16, Â“I did prepar e 4 it.Â” Being responsible for practice also explained LauraÂ’s situated meaning in her refl ective response in item 17, Â“I did rehearse.Â” Both Roberto and Laura positioned themselves as responsible actors who complied with Mrs. R.Â’s rules by using the emphatic did to emphasize their participation and effort. By using the emphatic did Roberto and Laura resisted how Mrs. R. and the actors discursively positioned them during the rehearsals. These two situated meanings revealed both Roberto and LauraÂ’s resistance of the wa y others had discursively constructed them
149 and used the Discourse model of being re sponsible to position themselves as in compliance with the rules. Mrs. R.Â’s discursive positioning of Roberto as uncommitted (e.g. on day 7) was reproduced in the way the actors positione d him. Finally, on day 12, their actions culminated, and as Roberto narrated, severa l of the actors shouted in unison, Â“Louder!Â” Then, Luis noticed RobertoÂ’s lack of atten tion and said, Â“Robert o, stop!Â” In the rising scene, Luis had to cue him shouting, Â“R oberto, go!Â” After LuisÂ’s cue, Roberto demonstrated his assessment of the situation as hopeless, de monstrating his resistance by moving farther away from the group, which diminished his volume even further. In one of the early rehearsals, Robe rto also performed his asse ssment of the play as an unpromising activity by sitting apart from th e group. He explained his resistance to the play because, as he stated, Â“I donÂ’t like to wo rk with people, I just like to be by myself.Â” His resistances existed in relationship with how he was positioned not only in the play, but also in Â“the intertwini ng of multiple sociocultural forcesÂ” elsewhere at school, at home, and in his neighborhood (Cammarota, 2004). In his intervie w, Roberto talked proudly about how one of his teachers praise d a picture he drew for her. He also expressed his goals of being either a rapper or a wrestler. When I praised his poster, RobertoÂ’s eyes lit up and he ta lked about how he liked to do unique things in his writing, such as substituting the number for the word four The fifth rule of Discourse model one wa s being responsible for rate of speech, volume, and posture. Rate of speech was important to Lena, whose role in the play was to recite the introduction in Spanis h. Lena assembled two situated meanings in her interview in item 18, Â“to talk slowlyÂ” and item 19, Â“t o read slowly.Â” She positioned herself as
150 conscientious and as someone who followed Mr s. R.Â’s expectations as well as her parentsÂ’ directions. LenaÂ’s words alluded to Mrs. R.Â’s warning on day 5 Â“slow down, please.Â” They also alluded to Mrs. R.Â’s dir ections on day 7. In that rehearsal, Mrs. R. shook her head disapprovingly and advised Lena Â“YouÂ’re going to have to practice more at home.Â” Lena said she practiced for her parent s and sister at home and they told her she needed Â“to read slowly.Â” Lena made speaking slowly relevant to the audienceÂ’s ability to understand the words. Volume was important to two students: Diana and Patricia. Diana assembled the situated meaning in item 20, Â“to talk louder, Â” in her interview. Diana treated increasing volume as significant by listing it first in Mrs. R.Â’s goals for the play. Diana positioned herself as aware of Mrs. R.Â’s goals a nd responsible for following them. Patricia assembled another situated meaning in her refl ective response in item 21, Â“to talk loud so everybody could hear us.Â” Patricia connected increasing volume to the audienceÂ’s need to hear the dialog. Patricia positioned herself as conscientious and aw are of the audience. These two examples alluded to Mrs. R.Â’s wo rds on day 8 when the Latina audience was present and Mrs. R. focused on volume. On that day, Mrs. R. told Mario, Â“Very good, but louder.Â” Mrs. R. also turned to the narra tor and said, Â“Repeat that. Louder!Â” A few minutes later, Mrs. R. said, Â“ThatÂ’s much better. Louder.Â” Posture was important to Lena, who a ssembled the situated meaning in her reflective response in item 22, Â“to stand up stra ight and look at the parents.Â” Lena treated posture as significant by rating it, and eye cont act, as the two key qua lities she learned to use in order to properly addr ess the audience. For Lena, focus was also an issue, and Discourse model 1 explained LenaÂ’s situated meaning in her reflective response in item
151 23, Â“I had to focus on what I was doing.Â” Le na treated focus, or concentration, as significant in what she learned to master in acting by listing it among the top three things she learned in the play. This alluded to Le naÂ’s habit of stroking her long dark ponytail while she was reciting. On day 12, Luis blur ted out suddenly, Â“Stop touching your hair!Â” From that day forward, Lena ne ver touched her hair again. The sixth rule of Discourse model one was being responsible for perfection. Being responsible for perfection explained Patr iciaÂ’s situated meaning assembled in her reflective response in item 24, Â“we couldnÂ’t do mistakes on that day.Â” Patricia portrayed herself as responsible, and as someone who was aware of and shared Mrs. R.Â’s goals. Patricia treated the actorsÂ’ responsibility for the playÂ’s success by repeating the pronoun we She connected the playÂ’s success to the ac torsÂ’ responsibility to strive for perfection. One of the social goods in contention was the acceptance of Mrs. R.Â’s expectations, which were mediated by the video. PatriciaÂ’s words alluded to Mrs. R.Â’s words on days 2, 8 and 12. On day 2, Mrs. R. emphasized that if her expectations were not met, the result would be catastrophic, Â“You donÂ’t understand th at when you perform this has to be perfect. We will embarrass ourselves.Â” On day 8, she exhorted Eva, Â“If you donÂ’t do it perfectly, we canÂ’t do it!Â” Again on day 12, she reiterated the idea of perfection, Â“Maybe ten mistakes tomorrow. On Monday, no mistakes.Â” The seventh rule of Discourse model one was being responsible for extra work. Being responsible for extra work explained LenaÂ’s situated meaning in her reflective response in item 25, Â“Saturdays I needed to come to school to practiceÂ” Lena positioned herself as responsible by le tting her parents know about her mandatory attendance at extra Saturday rehearsals. Sh e treated this knowledge as si gnificant for her parents to
152 know because of their responsibility for her sa fety and transportation by using the plural form Saturdays. It did not matter that, as it turned out, there was only 1 Saturday rehearsal in addition to the fina l performance for the parents. Being responsible for extra work expl ained two situated meanings Jazmin assembled in her reflective response in item 26, Â“We had to stay from 2:00 to around 4:00Â” and in item 27, Â“We had to do a lot of workÂ” Jazmin positioned herself and the other actors as collectively responsible for the work involved in the play production, and emphasized this collective res ponsibility by us ing the pronoun we Being responsible for extra work also explained Patr iciaÂ’s situated meaning in he r reflective response in item 28, Â“that day we had to be early.Â” Patricia conn ected the required early arrival time on the day of the play to the unpla nned final rehearsal the actors ca rried out without the teacher. The eighth rule of Discourse model one wa s being responsible for costumes. This rule explained MarioÂ’s situated meaning asse mbled in his reflective response in item 29, Â“I had to go to work with my uncle so I c ould buy my pants.Â” Mario portrayed himself as a responsible actor and as someone who worked hard to fulfill Mrs. R.Â’s instructions to obtain the appropriate costume. He also por trayed himself as creative for solving the problem of purchasing the pants for his farm worker costume. MarioÂ’s words alluded to Mrs. R.Â’s words on day 4 when the costume rules were first mentioned. Mrs. R. said Â“Farm clothing. This is 1924. Guys, donÂ’t wear sneakers.Â” On day 5, Mrs. R. repeated the rule, Â“YouÂ’re supposed to be campesinosÂ” [count ry folk]. On day 6, Mrs. R. ended the rehearsal with the rule, Â“You have to bring the clothes a week before.Â” Mario followed the rule and wore his loose khaki pants and ma tching shirt proudly at the dress rehearsal.
153 Being responsible for costumes explained PatriciaÂ’s situated meaning in item 30, Â“We had to dress up,Â” which she assembled in her reflective response. Patricia portrayed herself as responsible for th e special activities of a dramatic performance, and as someone who adopted Mrs. R.Â’s expectati ons. Rule number 8 explained PatriciaÂ’s situated meaning in her interview in item 31, Â“Abuelita has to dr ess with a long dress with long sleeves. And it has to be all black b ecause she is rich, so she has to be elegant.Â” Patricia privileged Mrs. R.Â’s discourse practice of using the characterÂ’s name to address actors by pausing after saying Â“itÂ’sÂ” and rest arting her description with her characterÂ’s name. She privileged Mrs. R.Â’s style of de scription by using many of Mrs. R.Â’s exact words from the costume descrip tion on day 5, such as the word elegant PatriciaÂ’s words alluded to day 5 when Mrs. R. said, Â“Abuelit a is an elegant woman, a woman of money: a black dress, loose dress.Â” The ninth rule of Discourse model one wa s being responsible for helping others. This rule explained two situated meanings Luis assembled in his interview in item 32, Â“try not to make Eva laugh, so sheÂ’ll be se rious,Â” and item 33, Â“helping them not to laugh.Â” Luis positioned himself as responsible and as someone who cooperated to support other actorsÂ’ performances. In item 32, Luis made his behavior rele vant to EvaÂ’s ability to act. In item 33, Â“helping them not to laugh,Â” Luis made his behavior relevant to the other actorsÂ’ attitudes and beha vior. Luis positioned himself as responsible for the other actorsÂ’ correct attitude and be havior. In treating hi s behavior as responsible, Luis implied that one social good at stake in the play was his reputation as having a significant influence on the performance.
154 LuisÂ’s words alluded to Mrs. R.Â’s warni ngs to Eva on days 2 and 8 when she said, Â“You canÂ’t smileÂ” and Â“DonÂ’t laugh!Â” LuisÂ’s wo rds also alluded to Mrs. R.Â’s request for help on day 8, to which he readily reacted by retrieving a broom and cleaning up the stage. However, later on day 8, a crisis occurr ed when Mrs. R. pointed to the audience and demanded that Luis perform as if the other students were the parents. When Luis said, Â“I donÂ’t care,Â” Mrs. R. demanded coope ration saying, Â“You have to care.Â” In this performance, Mrs. R. clearly confronted Luis with her expectation to commit himself to her accuracy-based approach. In the pause between her words and LuisÂ’s response, power shifted. In his response Â“Can we start now?Â” By using the pronoun we Luis positioned himself as a leader who had more power th an the teacher. Luis denied the teacherÂ’s power and implied the actors were waiting fo r her to stop her performance, which was recognized as a disruption of the rehearsal. Luis did not own or care about Mrs. R.Â’s approach, nor did he perceive the student audien ce as parents, but as part of the teacherÂ’s manipulation. Repression may generate emotions and other internal resources needed for academic achievement (Trueba, 2004). As Cammarota (2004) stated, race and gender shape whether Latinos/as Â“perceive educati on as oppressive or us eful in resisting oppressionÂ” (p. 53). Gender shaped both the acto rsÂ’ perceptions of Mrs. R.Â’s approach as oppressive or useful in resisting oppression, and their resulting performances. Whereas Luis perceived Mrs. R.Â’s approach to the play as oppressive, a nd played around, Jazmin perceived Mrs. RÂ’s approach as useful in resisting the oppressi on she experienced in school. As Cammarota stated, La tinos/asÂ’ diverse responses to education are leveraged by the differential treatment Latinos and Latinas receive both in schools and in society. In an
155 interview, Mario told me he and Luis had been in another middl e school the previous year. In her conversations with me, Mrs. R. seemed to construct the boys in a certain way in order to explain their beha vior and her to lerance of it. Early in the fieldwork, Mrs. R. stressed her close relationship with the studentsÂ’ parents, saying that she had ta lked to all of them during th e year. Mrs. R. emphasized her concern about Mario and Luis because of thei r school history, saying they were Â“at riskÂ” for involvement in gang activities outside of sc hool. Then, in the cont ext of the reflective responses in the fifth interview, Mrs. R. emphasized her concern about how JazminÂ’s classmates treated her, which seemed to be a justification for giving Jazmin a key part in the play. As explained earlier in the section on the vote, Mrs. R. said she gave the four boys and one girl she dismissed from the pl ay two or three oppor tunities, but Â“they decided they did not want to act,Â” which m eant, Â“comply with my rules.Â” Only in the context of the reflective responses did Mrs. R. suggest that it was LauraÂ’s fault that she dropped out. Luis perceived Mrs. R.Â’s approach as oppressive because it discursively constructed him as deficient. Later, in the context of the playÂ’s success, Luis critiqued Mrs. R.Â’s performance during th e rehearsal in his reflective response. Luis implied that Mrs. R.Â’s prediction that the play was a nd would turn out to be a Â“messÂ” had no connection to his belief about the playÂ’s out come. On day 10, for instance, when Mrs. R. said, Â“Trust me, your parents are going to say, Â‘look at that line,Â’Â” Luis disagreed saying, Â“No, theyÂ’re not.Â” Luis was crit ical of the teachersÂ’ words be cause he construed them as a manipulation of his self-confidence in his pa rentsÂ’ regard for him. Moreover, in his response Â“can we start now?Â” in the cris is on day 8, Luis suggested the binaryÂ’s
156 intractability, namely that as long as the t eacher continued her approach, the discourse practice of playing aroun d would continue. The ninth rule of Discourse model one, he lping others, explained five situated meanings other actors assembled in their reflective responses. Four of these involved helping others with their lines In LenaÂ’s situated meaning in item 34, Â“I needed to tell her; she was my partner,Â” Lena positioned herself as responsible for helping Jazmin if she forgot a line. LenaÂ’s words alluded to Mrs. R.Â’s advice on day 12 when she faltered over a line and Mrs. R. told Laura, her partner at the time, Â“Help each other, please.Â” Diana and Luis assembled three situated meanings about helping Mario with his memorization. Diana assembled two situated m eanings in her reflective response in item 35 Â“I helped others by helping them with their linesÂ” and item 36 Â“By helping him to memorize his lines,Â” Diana positioned hers elf as responsible and as someone who believed in and followed Mrs. R.Â’s rules. Dian aÂ’s situated meanings alluded to Mrs. R.Â’s words on day 8 when Mario forgot several lines After Mrs. R. scol ded him, he whined, Â“ItÂ’s too long,Â” but Mrs. R. countered, Â“You need to take pages home to study.Â” Luis assembled a situated meaning similar to DianaÂ’s in his reflective response in item 37, Â“I helped Mario at home and at school.Â” Luis positioned himself as the responsible older brother, and as someone w ho adhered to the rules. LuisÂ’s situated meaning alluded to Mrs. R.Â’s words on day 3, the Saturday morning rehearsal, when Mrs. R. warned them, Â“Because youÂ’re reading, youÂ’re not acting.Â” Between Saturday and Monday, Mario seemed to have studied at hom e with LuisÂ’s help, because on day 4 when Mario remembered his line, Mrs. R. validat ed his memorization saying, Â“That deserves a reward!Â”
157 The ninth rule of Discourse model one was helping others and in her reflective response, Lena assembled the situated mean ing in item 38, Â“I helped Mrs. R.Â” While other actors assembled situated meanings a bout helping each other, Lena assembled a situated meaning about helping Mrs. R. Lena positioned herself as responsible and as someone who was willing to help Mrs. R. by understudying for those who were absent. LenaÂ’s words alluded to day 12 when she subs tituted for the absent Nina who played the role of Isabel. Lena enacted a respectful re lationship with the teach er by referring to her by her title Â“Mrs. R.Â” Finally, the tenth rule of Discourse model one had two parts: being responsible for making changes and being responsible for improvement. Being responsible for making changes explained several situated meanings the actors assembled in their reflective responses. NinaÂ’s situated meaning in item 39, Â“they had to change a lot of thingsÂ” was similar to DianaÂ’s situated meaning in item 40, Â“we changed a lot of things.Â” Both girls enacted the activity of recogni zing that change was one of the main beliefs in the Discourse of the play. The two situated meanings differed in that Nina positioned herself as less involved than Diana by using the pronoun they whereas Diana used the pronoun we Nina may have felt less involved because sh e had a minor role and she was absent a lot because she reportedly had to baby-sit for her siblings. Similarly, in her reflective response in item 41, Nina assembled the situated meaning, Â“they had to change students becau se one didnÂ’t want to do it.Â” This was similar to the situated meaning Lena assemble d in her reflective response in item 42, Â“we changed some parts.Â” Although both girls tr eated the changes in actorsÂ’ roles as significant, Nina positioned hers elf as less involved, rather th an an active participant by
158 using the pronoun they On the other hand, Lena, like Di ana had in item 40, positioned herself as an active part icipant by using the pronoun we Again, NinaÂ’s frequent absences might have accounted for her feeling of be ing less involved. On day 12, for example, Lena substituted for Nina. Furthermore, Le na treated changes in parts as significant because her partner Laura was replaced after day 12, which was approximately half way through the play. These examples demonstrated that each actorÂ’s di scourse reflected his or her particular embodied experiences. Diana used change as a motif in her refl ective response. In her situated meaning in item 43, Â“ Esperanza Rising was changed,Â” Diana treated the changes in the novel as significant in the play. DianaÂ’s words alluded to the authorÂ’s note a bout the changes that occurred in the novel, namely changing the ranchÂ’s name and EsperanzaÂ’s age. Diana mentioned that the authorÂ’s grandmother wa s already married when she immigrated to the United States. DianaÂ’s words also alluded to Mrs. R.Â’s descripti on of these changes in her prologue to the play on the day of the performance. Diana positioned herself as someone who listened to and valued both the novel and Mrs. R.Â’s knowledge of the novel displayed in her prologue. Also in her reflective res ponse, Diana assembled the situated meaning in item 44, Â“we had to change the part of the blanket.Â” Diana treated the requirement of matching the blanketÂ’s description in the script to the actual prop as significant, counting it as the second most important change after the m odification of the Esperanza role. Diana positioned herself as a responsible actor, and as someone who understood and valued Mrs. R.Â’s rule about the blanket. On day 11, Diana brought in a knitted blanket to use as a prop. While the group walked to the cafeteria to practice, Mrs. R. examined the blanketÂ’s
159 size and said, Â“WeÂ’re changing th e line to say it covers your be d.Â” In the script, the line read that the blanket was Â“big enough to cove r two beds.Â” Mrs. R. said that the change was necessary because in the previous play, the audience laughed at the obvious difference between the description of the bl anketÂ’s size and the act ual blanket displayed on stage. Â“Being responsible for improvementÂ” was the second part of the tenth rule of Discourse model one. Being responsible fo r improvement explained two situated meanings Diana assembled in her interview in item 45, Â“to come out rightÂ” and item 46, Â“to be better than last yea rÂ’s.Â” In item 45, Diana positione d herself as someone who was well aware of Mrs. R.Â’s expectation of accu racy. DianaÂ’s words alluded to Mrs. R.Â’s words on day 8, Â“If you donÂ’t do it perfectly, we canÂ’t do it!Â” DianaÂ’s words also alluded to day 8 when the bus station scene had to be repeated until Mrs. R. said, Â“Now the action matches the narratorÂ’s words!Â” In item 46, Di ana also positioned herself as someone who was aware that the rules were mediated by the video. DianaÂ’s words alluded to day 11, when Mrs. R. explained that a change in the script was necessary to make the words match the prop so the audience would not laugh. Being responsible for improvement also explained LindaÂ’s situated meaning assembled in her interview in item 47, Â“IÂ’m trying to do better.Â” Linda positioned herself as someone who knew Mrs. R. wanted accu racy and was confident because she won more praise than the others LindaÂ’s words alluded to day 11, when the teacher asked Luis, Â“I can hear her (Linda), why canÂ’t I hear you?Â” Jealous of Linda for winning Mrs. R.Â’s praise, Mario remarked, Â“She has a bi g mouth.Â” Being responsible for improvement also explained PatriciaÂ’s situated meaning assembled in her reflective response in item
160 48, Â“We had to improve a lot.Â” Like item 46, Patr icia positioned herself as aware of Mrs. R.Â’s expectations and that the rules were mediated by the video. PatriciaÂ’s situated meaning alluded to Mrs. R.Â’s words on day 6 when she responded to PatriciaÂ’s question Â“Is that good?Â” with Â“Yes, and you are going to have to make it bette r and better!Â” Diana, Linda, and Patricia portrayed themselves as diligent actors who knew what Mrs. R. wanted and tried to comply with her rule s. All three girls treated improvement as significant by referring to the video by whic h they measured their performance. Their words alluded to Mrs. R.Â’s words on day 9, in which the video was used as a source for critique. Â“I donÂ’t see action, the words are better than the action. We can see the errors they made.Â” Summary and Critique All thirteen actors used the Discourse mode l of being responsible to recognize and explain their practices, making it the most salient of the seve n Discourse models. Like all Discourse models, it was grounded in the acto rsÂ’ experiences in the play production. Also like all Discourse models, it helped the actors organize their thoughts about their obligations, such as memorization, attitude, and so forth, so they would be ready to participate in the play production. In c onclusion, the Discourse model of being responsible was a particularly complex and we ll-organized mental model that existed in the actorsÂ’ words and actions. However, as Gee (2005) stated, Discourse m odels are not just mental models that exist in peopleÂ’s words and actions, they al so exist in print and media. The Discourse model of being responsible existed in the vi deo of the previous play as well as the participantsÂ’ words and actions. Brandt a nd Clinton (2002) proposed that a study of
161 literacy-in-action would trace the history of objects in a settin g to see if the people in a particular context adopted them or not. In the play production, the video was such an object, and the actors adopted it as one of th eir tools, along with the script. The video represented a set of conventions, or rules, th e explanations of which the actors described in the Discourse model of being responsible As Gee (2005) stated, Discourse models mediate between the local level of interaction and the level of institutions. The Discourse model of being responsible mediated between the local level of inte raction (the actorsÂ’ discourse practices) and Discourses as they created and wove a complex culture across the history of the play production. The Discourse model of being responsi ble mediated between the teacherÂ’s discourse practices and Discour ses of school and society. In the fifth interview, I asked Mrs. R. what she thought the students learne d from the play, and she responded, Â“I think that what they learned with this play is a little b it of responsibility, future responsibility.Â” Being Â“committed to do something in the future ,Â” she stated involves, Â“responsibility, learning, memorizing.Â” Mrs. R. conferred commitment and perfection if the actors performed according to the rules. Mrs. R.Â’s involvement in the constructi on of the discourses was evident in the actorsÂ’ performances in their interviews. Just as the Asian student recognized something about my performance when he said, Â“YouÂ’re half a teacher,Â” the actors wanted me to recognize their identiti es of commitment in their in terviews, and therefore gave performances they believed I would accep t. All the actors were aware of their performances. For example, Tania used formal social language, and Roberto was reluctant to critique the teacherÂ’s approach. Diana was also reluctant to be critical at first, but after a
162 period in which she must have observed and assessed my fieldwork performance, she finally trusted me enough to reveal her crit ical views about the play. The teacherÂ’s accuracy-based instructional discourse did not create an authorized space for critical perspectives, but instead crea ted its own resistance. By creating a space for critical perspectives, the play would have been equita ble and the actorsÂ’ perf ormances would have demonstrated ownership. Performances are multimediated, as Lea nder and Rowe (2006) stated, and offer many divergent literate practices and id entities. The participantsÂ’ multimediated performances offered many diverse literacy practices and iden tities; however the interpretation of their performa nces was inadequate because, Â“interpretations fail to bring to life the experience of performances as embodied, ra pidly moving, affectively charged, evolving acts that often escape prediction a nd structureÂ” (Leander and Rowe, p. 431). On day 7, I noticed Diana rolling her eyes in a wa y that expressed a critical view of the playÂ’s closing proverb that Mexican-American immigrants should Â“never fear to start over.Â” DianaÂ’s gestures and facial expre ssion were clues to the critical textual interpretation she was making and an exampl e of the embodied engagement and identity offered by her performance. Unfortunately, th e instructional discour se did not validate the actorsÂ’ critical perspec tives by making space for them in the play production. As Leander and Rowe (2006) stated, multim ediated performances generate affect and identities in actors and audience alike, such as the emotions and identities generated in DianaÂ’s performance. DianaÂ’s performance, as well as othersÂ’, offered the promise of understanding more than the meanings containe d in print and visual texts. Unfortunately, the methodological approach I took in this case study was based on visual
163 representational logic, and therefore was inadequate for interpreting the dynamic embodied performances. Discourse, as Conque rgood (1991) stated, Â“i s not always and exclusively verbal: issues and attitudes are expressed and contested in dance, music, gesture, food, ritual artifact, symbolic acti on, as well as wordsÂ” (p. 189). In this study, I made the mistake of researchers who Â“privile ge words over other channels of meaningÂ” (p. 189). As Leander and Rowe stated, visu al representational l ogic is limited to understanding print and visual texts, and althoug h such an analysis ca n be instructive, it can also fail to demonstrate, Â“how a perf ormance creates effects for performers and audience membersÂ” (p. 431). McLuhan (1962) ex plained this limitation of the visual by stating Â“the phonetic alph abet reduced the use of all the senses at once, which is oral speech, to a merely visual codeÂ” (p. 45). Visu al logic shaped both the teacherÂ’s pedagogy and my methodology.
164 Table 1 The Discourse model of being responsible ____________________________________ Situated Meanings ______________________________________________________________________ 1. To act more and to be serious, to sa y something to make something serious. 2. Get serious 3. They really got serious. 4. Acting and attitude. 5. You have to act. 6. I had to memorize all of my parts of the play. 7. You memorize your parts and then memorize what to say and where to stand on the stage, and then you act. 8. To know how to act and remember the lines. 9. They have to learn the lines. 10. They have to study everyday. 11. You have to memorize it. 12. We had to memorize the parts of the play. 13. They practiced their parts and acted too. 14. Study their parts. 15. When itÂ’s real 16. I did prepare 4 it. 17. I did rehearse. 18. To talk slowly. 19. To read slowly. 20. To talk louder. 21. To talk loud so everybody could hear us. 22. To stand up straight and look at the parents 23. To focus on what I was doing. 24. We couldnÂ’t do mistakes on that day. 25. Saturdays I needed to co me to school to practice. ____________________________________________________________ Used by Luis, Diana, Patricia, Laur a, Mario, Lena, Li sa, Roberto, Nina, Linda, Eva, Jazmin, and Tania.
165 Table 1 (continued) The Discourse model of being responsible _____________________________________ Situated Meanings _______________________________________________________________________ 26. We had to stay from 2:00 to around 4:00. 27. We had to do a lot of work. 28. That day we had to be early. 29. I had to go to work with my uncle so I could buy my pants. 30. We had to dress up. 31. Abuelita has to dress with a long dress with long sleeves. And it has to be all black because she is rich, so she has to be elegant. 32. Try not to make Eva laugh, so sheÂ’ll be serious. 33. Helping them not to laugh. 34. I needed to tell he r; she was my partner. 35. I helped others by helping them with their lines. 36. By helping him to memorize his lines. 37. I helped Mario at home and at school. 38. I helped Mrs. R. 39. They had to change a lot of things. 40. We changed a lot of things. 41. They had to change student s because one didnÂ’t want to do it. 42. We changed some parts. 43. Esperanza Rising was changed. 44. We had to change the part of the blanket. 45. To come out right. 46. To be better than last yearÂ’s. 47. We had to improve a lot. 48. IÂ’m trying to do better.
166 Discourse Model 2: Playing Around The Discourse Analysis revealed that 11 of the 13 actors in the play operated with the Discourse model of playing around. The an alysis revealed a difference between the Discourse model of playing around that aff ected espoused beliefs and the Discourse model of playing around that a ffected actual actions and pr actices. The Discourse model that affected espoused beliefs held that playing around was ac ting contrary to Mrs. R.Â’s expectations, and that this misbehavior had severe consequences for the play and its participants. The Discourse model of playing around that affected actions and practices held that causing a targetÂ—the teacher or a peerÂ—to react was en tertaining. Playing around was a game that involved teasing the t eacher or peers and ga uging their reaction. Playing around was constructed in relations hip with the teacherÂ’s expectations and became an unmanageable binary. The Discourse model of playing around that affected espoused beliefs held that playing around was behaving contrary to Mrs. R.Â’s expectations and had dire consequences for the play and the participan ts. This Discourse model represented Mrs. R.Â’s interest, which was to involve all the st udents in a presentati on in the after-school program. In the fifth interview, the teacher to ld me she had offered the students a choice between participating in the play and taking a final examination in class. She said the students had voted to particip ate in the presentations, which meant rehearsing everyday after school. In the classroom on day 16, Mrs. R. reminded the ESOL class that those students who were not in the Esperanza Renace production were requir ed to participate
167 in the second presentation entitled Peoples of the World and that they were required to attend rehearsals after school. Tania assembled the situated meaning (Tab le 2, item 1) Â“they donÂ’t behave well,Â” in her interview. Tania positioned herself as responsible and critical of the other actors, whom she positioned as different from her by using the pronoun they Tania positioned herself as critical of the practice of playi ng around by using formal social language in the adverb well to enact the activity of ju dging the behavior as having a negative effect on the playÂ’s outcome. Patricia assembled the situated meaning in item 2 in her interview, Â“the attitudes of the kids are bad.Â” Patricia positioned herself as aware of and troubled by the other actorsÂ’ approach to the play. Using informal social language to re fer to the actors as kids Patricia distanced herself from them and posit ioned herself as an outsider, and therefore as someone who did not operate with this Disc ourse model. Patricia positioned the actorsÂ’ attitudes as at fault, impl ying that Discourses in the c ontext of school and society influenced them in a negative way. PatriciaÂ’s words allude to the Conversation about the resistances that shape the orientations to school of many poor urban adolescents who doubt society will accept them even if they demonstrate success in school settings (Ogbu, 1991; Gee, 2003; Cammarota, 2004). The situated meanings of Patricia, Dian a, and Eva suggested that playing around was considered a normal part of school. Dian a assembled the situated meaning in item 3, Â“people play around,Â” in the context of a conve rsation about the cha nges in the role of Esperanza. Diana told me that the day before my arrival, the role belonged to her, but Mrs. R. took the role away from her and gave it to Eva. At that point, I arrived and saw
168 Eva playing the role. By the second day of fieldwork, however, Diana had won back a portion of the Esperanza role, which from th at day forward, the two girls shared. Diana assembled the situated meaning Â“people play aroundÂ” to describe why she lost the role and had to appeal to Mrs. R. to have her pa rt restored. Diana conve yed a perspective that thatÂ’s just the way things worked in the pla y. She portrayed herself as less culpable by using the word people implying that the practice of playing around was the normal procedure everywhere and she learned it through observing similar situations in school. Eva assembled the situated meaning in item 4, Â“sometimes they play, but then we do the right thing.Â” Eva positioned herself as uncomfortable with those who misbehaved by using the pronoun we to show her association with the correctly behaving group, and they to disassociate herself from the misbehaving group. Eva mitigated the misbehaving groupÂ’s culpability by using the word sometimes In addition, she used the conjunction but to position her group as wi nning the struggle against the practice of playing around. Like PatriciaÂ’s, EvaÂ’s words allude to the Conversation about the re sistances that shape the orientations to school of many poor urba n adolescents who doubt society will accept them even if they are successful in sc hool settings (Ogbu, 1991; Gee, 2003; Cammarota, 2004). All four girls Tania, Patricia, Diana, and Eva, portrayed th e practice of playing around as normal and positioned others as guilty of engaging in it, not themselves. Jazmin assembled the situated meaning in item 5, Â“he plays with youÂ” to explain why one of the boys was no longer in the pl ay. Jazmin positioned the boy as engaging in playing around by teasing student s. Jazmin also assembled the situated meaning in item 6, Â“I got kicked outÂ” in her interview to descri be the result of an accusation that she threw things on the bus, which barred her attendance in after-school. Later, this caused her to
169 ask Mrs. R. for a ride home so she could pa rticipate in the play. Jazmin positioned herself as a victim because she claimed the charge was based on hearsay in the situated meaning in item 7 Â“that wasnÂ’t me.Â” JazminÂ’s words alluded to LuisÂ’s situated meaning in item 8, Â“they took them out of the play for playi ng around too much.Â” Jazmin and Luis both positioned themselves as aware that the punish ment for engaging in the game of playing around, or playing, was exclusion. Both posit ioned adults as ex ercising authority by evaluating who was guilty and physically removi ng those who engaged in the practice of playing around. Luis also assembled the following situated meanings to define playing around in item 9, Â“Just doing whatever you want to do, and not listen to th e teacher, and just messing around.Â” Compared with th e relative ambiguity of the fi rst and last phrases, the second phraseÂ’s meaning was softened by placin g it between the other two. Luis softened the first and last phrases further by using the word just in front of them to minimize the seriousness of this practice. Luis positioned himself as skilled at recognizing and describing the practice by providing three synonyms for it. The Discourse model of playing around that affected actual actions and practices explained six related situated meanings. Luis assembled the first of these related situated meanings in his reflective response in item 10, Â“she got mad because we were not doing anything right.Â” In this post-performance contex t, Luis treated the irony of Mrs. R.Â’s dire predictions in light of the su ccessful performance as significa nt. In addition, Luis enacted a distant and comparatively disrespectful rela tionship with Mrs. R. by using the pronoun she instead of her title. Luis disconfirmed Mr s. R.Â’s claim to know about the actorsÂ’ abilities by exaggerating her criticism with the words Â“we were not doing anything right.Â”
170 Luis positioned Mrs. R.Â’s reacti on to the actorsÂ’ att itude and actions as unjustifiable in the context of the successful play because the ac tors had to have been doing something right for the play to turn out as well as it did. LuisÂ’s words alluded to his comment, wh ich I observed on day 10. On that day, as the rehearsal was ending, Mrs. R. criticize d the actorsÂ’ line for the bow saying, Â“Trust me, your parents are going to say, Â‘look at th at line.Â’Â” But Luis disagreed. Â“No, theyÂ’re not.Â” Instead of accepting the intention behind Mrs. R.Â’s criticism, namely to motivate the actors to form a straight line, Luis constr ued her words as a manipulation because they disconfirmed his self-confide nce in parental regard. Mario assembled the second of these si x related situated meanings in his reflective response in item 11, Â“Mrs. R said th at the play was going to be a mess because we were being bad and talked back to her. Â” Mario constructed hi s discourse using the teacherÂ’s reported speech. In this post-per formance context, Mario treated the irony of Mrs. R.Â’s predictions in light of the su ccessful performance as significant. Mario disconfirmed Mrs. R.Â’s claim to know because her prediction regarding the outcome of the play was clouded by her reaction to the ac torsÂ’ misbehavior. In other words, Mario portrayed Mrs. R. as having lost the game. Mrs. R.Â’s reported speech contained the word mess which alluded to the actual word mess used on day 8 in Mrs. R.Â’s question Â“What is this mess?Â” However, unlike Luis, Mario en acted a respectful relationship with the teacher by referring to her by her title Â“Mrs. R.Â” Roberto assembled the third of these six related situated meanings in item 12, Â“when you say, Â‘do this, do thisÂ’ really strict and stuff, I donÂ’t know, I misbehave,Â” in his interview. Roberto positioned himself as a hos tile outsider, and as someone who did not
171 accept direction very well. Roberto mitigated his reaction with the self-absolving phrase Â“I donÂ’t know.Â” Roberto reacted to criticism su ch as on day 8 when Mrs. R. asked him to repeat his lines; Roberto walked across the stage, swinging the microphone cable in front of him, making a swishing noise like the wi nd. In his situated meaning above Roberto privileged the beliefs and values of th e Discourse model of playing around which affected actual actions and practices. Nina assembled the fourth of these six re lated situated meanings in her reflective response in item 13, Â“the participation was kind of good because we were talking, playing around.Â” Nina named the practice of playing around as the cause of the unacceptable performances during the rehearsa ls. Nina used the adjective kind of to minimize the acceptability of the actorsÂ’ performances. Li ke Luis, Mario, and Lisa, Nina positioned herself as a member of the group enga ged in playing around by using the pronoun we Lisa assembled the fifth of these six re lated situated meanings in her reflective response in item 14, Â“Mrs. R was mad at us because we were talking and playing around.Â” In this post-performance context, Li sa connected Mrs. R.Â’s reaction to the actorsÂ’ misbehavior during rehearsals. Lisa pos itioned herself as a member of the group responsible for causing Mrs. R. Â’s reaction by using the pronoun we Like Mario, Lisa enacted a respectful relationship with th e teacher by using th e title Â“Mrs. R.Â” Laura assembled the last of these six relate d situated meanings in her interview in item 15, Â“theyÂ’re just making Mrs. R scream.Â” In the post-exit context of her interview, Laura connected Mrs. R.Â’s reaction to the ac torsÂ’ misbehavior duri ng rehearsals. LauraÂ’s connection was similar to those of Lisa and Mario. In addition, like Lisa and Mario, Laura enacted a respectful relationship with the teacher using the title, Â“Mrs. R.Â”
172 However, unlike Lisa and Mario, Laura positione d herself as critical of the other actorsÂ’ behavior. Laura treated the other actors as re sponsible for causing Mrs. R.Â’s impatience. Laura also conveyed a perspective on the social good of the actorsÂ’ reputations. She dismissed their practice of playing around as a childish and petty game by minimizing it using the word just Laura assembled three other situated meani ngs in her post-exit interview. The first one in item 16, Â“it was not only me doing all th e stuff,Â” alluded to the Discourse of the play, which was caught up in conflict, the so urce of which was the teacherÂ’s creation of the binary. Laura privileged he r knowledge of social Discou rses recognizing that others held the same Discourse model of playing around that affected actions and practices. Laura positioned herself as unfairly punished an d indignant that others were not punished for their misbehavior. One social good in contention in LauraÂ’s discourse is her reputation as a responsible actor in the play. Laura critiqued the instructional discourse as inherently unjust by implying that her re putation suffered while others who played around suffered no consequences. She implied that Mrs. R.Â’s involvement in the construction of the discourses was culpable for the playÂ’s inherent injustice. LauraÂ’s words alluded to the events on day 12. In the na rrative, it was clear that Laura intended to quit, but in her post-exit interview, Laura expressed regret abou t leaving the play. Laura assembled the second situated m eaning in item 17, Â“they arenÂ’t putting a hundred percent into it.Â” Laura positioned hersel f as critical of the Discourse of playing around and as a non-member by using they to distance herself. Laura privileged the Discourse model of being responsible for extr a work, using it to critique this Discourse. Laura assembled a third situated meaning in her interview in item 18, Â“if they would do
173 it without playing and all that stuff it w ould be easier.Â” Once more, Laura positioned herself as critical and a non-member by using they to distance herself from the social Discourse of playing around. La uraÂ’s discourse reflected a ne w critical Discourse with values and beliefs opposed to the so cial Discourse of playing around. Diana used change as a motif in her re flective response, in which she assembled the situated meaning in item 19, Â“What I woul d change would be playing around.Â” In the context of her post-performance reflective response, Diana positioned herself as having learned from her experience. Diana said in her interview that she was the original Esperanza, but was replaced by Eva because she did not follow Mrs. R.Â’s directions. Diana implied that she changed and had to appeal to Mrs. R. to share the role with Eva. This alluded to another situated meaning in her reflective response (Table 6, item 3), Â“Mrs. R changed us and we did a good job.Â” Diana treated the teacher with respect by using her title and validated her decision to divi de the role so that both girls could have a part, which allowed them to be successful. Summary and Critique Eleven of the thirteen actors used the Discourse model of playing around to recognize and explain their pr actices, making it one of the two most salient Discourse models. Like the other six Discourse models it was grounded in the actorsÂ’ experiences in their communities and was a particularly complex mental model that existed in the actorsÂ’ words and actions. Five significant findings em erged from the Discourse analysis. First, playing around was constructed in relationship with the teacherÂ’s expectations and became an unmanageable binary. Second, playing around wa s the performance of resistance, which
174 meant that the Â“textÂ” of the play became th e context of the performance text. Thinking about the world as performance, Con quergood (1991) states, helps us see how performances simultaneously reproduce a nd resist power. Third, playing around was considered a normal practice that existed as a regular part of school. Fourth, playing around was blamed on social Discourses. Fi fth, the warning that playing around would ruin the play turned out to be a red herring as playing around and the playÂ’s outcome had no connection. In other words, because pl aying around and the playÂ’s outcome had no connection, the actorsÂ’ culpability for playing around was mitigated or entirely erased in advance. As Gee (2005) stated, Discourse models emerge from social positions. The Discourse model of playing around emerged from the way the teacher discursively positioned the students. From the start, the te acher was involved in th e construction of the discourses through coercing the actorsÂ’ participation and en forcing her expectation of accuracy. Modeling represented accuracy and b ecame a source of mockery, such as on day 10 when Mario initiated playing around through a parody of the teacherÂ’s repetition requests telling Luis to Â“re-do it.Â” In additi on to this example, the crisis on day 8 also revealed that the actors did not own the pl ay, nor did they care about the teacherÂ’s expectations. The discourse practice of playing around was constructed in relationship with the teacherÂ’s expectations which it mocked and resisted. Not only did the instructional discours e create its own resistance, but it also reproduced power. In addition to the shifts of power in Luis and MarioÂ’s performances with Mrs. R., their performances w ith the girls reproduced power. Two examples of power were LuisÂ’s command to Lena, Â“donÂ’t touch your hair !Â” and MarioÂ’s solicitation of Laura with
175 the guttural cry of Â“Esp eranza!Â” MarioÂ’s (and Mrs. R.Â’s actions) seem to have been the most likely reason why Laura stood up later in the rehearsal when Mrs. R. asked, Â“Who wants to quit?Â” Ironically, instead of producing equity, which Mrs. R. espoused as one of her goals in the fifth interview, her involve ment in the construction of the discourses produced inequity. Instead of he lping the actors acquire knowle dge of how to give or take criticism, the teacher was involve d in the reproduction of power. The teacherÂ’s involvement in the construction of the discourses was caused by her approach to the play, which i nvolved power. As discussed ab ove, this power was enacted on day 12 when Laura covered her face revealin g her concern and anticipation that Mario would enact a distasteful perf ormance. When he did, Mrs. R. reacted with shock and scolded him. But in a shift of power, which mocked the teacher, Mario took control saying, Â“You told me to act, didnÂ’t you?Â” Mrs. R. and LauraÂ’s performances differed because Laura viewed the teacherÂ’s performance as hopeless against the di scourse practice of playing around, whereas Mrs. R. believed she wa s in control of the situation. One way Mrs. R. demonstrated that she believed she was in control was by giving Mario and Luis power as directors. She seemed to act as tho ugh giving the boysÂ’ power emphasized her control because she demonstrated this power by tel ling them when and where they would begin their work as directors. Through her actions and their underlying beliefs, Mrs. R.Â’s approach to the play involved her in the construction of the discourses. Through her actions, the teacher also dem onstrated her belief that if people solicited favors, they displayed ownership and commitment. For example, when Diana was dismissed for not following directions, sh e solicited Mrs. R. and arranged to share the role of Esperanza with Eva. In addition, Jazmin solicited Mrs. R. behind the scenes
176 for a ride home and a part in the play. Mrs. R. also attempted to enact power and display her commitment by soliciting parentsÂ’ help by threatening to dismiss students from the play for misbehavior, or to explain a dismissa l. When Luis replaced Javier, I noticed Mrs. R. talking on the phone explaining th e change to JavierÂ’s parent. However, Mrs. R.Â’s performance created e ffects for the audience, namely that her solicitation of the parents was really an en actment of powerlessne ss and hopelessness in eliminating the discourse pract ice of playing around that sh e was involved in creating. Mario wrote about Mrs. R.Â’s solicitation in his reflective response: Â“Mrs. R. worried because we kept talking and werenÂ’t pract icing. She called my parents and the whole class went outside because she got tired of our talking.Â” Mario recognized the actorsÂ’ performance as a lack of ownership and cons tructed it in relationship with the teacherÂ’s expectations. Mario recognized that this cons truction became an intractable binary, which Mrs. R. was powerless to solve and therefore needed to solicit his parentsÂ’ help. When Mario and Luis were positioned as leaders, their misbehavior tapered off. It seemed that the two boys used their performances to position themselves as privileged. In addition, one of the social Discourses at work in the play production was the discourse of gender roles. As Cammarota (2004) stated, a gender shift in the last 20 years has accounted for LatinasÂ’ steady rise in hi gh school and college graduation rates while LatinosÂ’ success rates have d eclined. As Cammarota stated, Latinas use academic success to negotiate their identity and re sist social constructions that position them as inferior to males. They may also simultaneously conform to and resist social norms through silent persistence as a form of counter ing social inequity. While the Latinas in the play generally
177 displayed conformist resistances, Mario and Luis used the more overt discourse practice of playing around to resist the La tinasÂ’ conformist resistances. After she left the play, Laura constructe d herself through a new critical discourse, which critiqued both the instru ctional and the playing around discourses and imagined an easier, more equitable way of participa ting in the performance community. Laura constructed a social justice or ientation in her reflective resp onse, describing an equitable performance community involving discourses in which valued all actors, included all voices, and privileged no singl e individual. On the day she left, Laura carried her Â“Army GirlÂ” t-shirt, which seemed to be visible evidence of her determination to prove them wrong by graduating and enlisting in the military (her plans revealed in her interview). Although proving them wrong, or transformationa l resistance, Cammaro ta (2004) stated, works best to change individuals, reflection on repressive situations in addition to the inner perspectives can encourage students to take up transformational resistance that challenges social inequities. Repression, Trueba (2004) stat ed, may generate emotions and other internal resources needed for academic achievement. Through their writing, both Laura and Diana constructe d social justice orientations and challenged the social inequities in their pe rformance community.
178 Table 2 The Discourse model of playing around _______________________________________ Situated Meanings _______________________________________________________________________ 1. They donÂ’t behave well. 2. The attitudes of the kids are bad. 3. People play around. 4. Sometimes they play, but then we do the right thing. 5. He plays with you. 6. I got kicked out. 7. That wasnÂ’t me. 8. They took them out of the play for playing too much. 9. Just doing whatever you want to do, and not listen to the teacher, and just messing around. 10. She got mad because we were not doing anything right. 11. Mrs. R. said that the play was going to be a mess because we were being bad and talked back to her. 12. When you say, Â‘do this, do thisÂ’ really strict and stuff, I donÂ’t know, I misbehave. 13. The participation was kind of good because we were talking, playing around. 14. Mrs. R. was mad at us because we were talking and playing around. 15. TheyÂ’re just making Mrs. R scream. 16. It was not only me doing all the stuff. 17. They arenÂ’t puttin g a hundred percent into it. 18. If they would do it wit hout playing and all that stuff, it would be easier. 19. What I would change would be playing around. ____________________________________________________________ Used by Luis, Tania, Lisa, Patricia, Dian a, Eva, Mario, Laura, Nina, Jazmin, and Roberto.
179 Characteristics of the Performances As Conquergood (1991) stated, performa nce ethnography considers both its subject and method to be embodied experience Â“s ituated in time, place, and historyÂ” (p. 187). As the researcher and co-participant, I was situated within the social drama of meaningful rituals situated in a specific tim e and place and having a specific history. In this section, I describe the ch aracteristics of these situat ed performances. These three characteristics were created based on three features Cowan (2003) used to analyze Latino visual discourse: the contextual, the intertex tual, and the social features. With these three features, I created three characteristics to an alyze the multimodal grammar of the play as a dynamic, situated performance, with a partic ular history. The contex tual characteristic describes the literacy events that aroused the Latino/a actorsÂ’ awareness of the sociohistorical context and the literacy ev ents that aroused th eir awareness of the contemporary social context in which the play took place. The intertextual characteristic describes how the actors drew from the elem ents of the modes of meaning to produce a unique multimodal text. In addition, the intert extual characteristic explains how the Latino/a actors were initiated into the cu ltural knowledge represented in the Mexican performance Discourse. The social feature Cowan (2005) used descri bes the visual literacy events within a group of Latino/a adolescents in which draw ings were made and exchanged. In this study, the social characteristic describes both a literacy ev ent in which several Latina adolescents participated and th e literacy events of the play production in which the Latina teacher and the Latino/a adolescents participated.
180 I distinguished between the pr actices in the visual liter acy event and the practices in the play productionÂ’s literacy events usi ng Grounded Theory (Gla ser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990), and nested the repo rt of the analysis within the social characteristic derived from Co wanÂ’s social feature. The leve l one social characteristic describes a visual literacy event through which the Latina adolescents constructed identities and displayed membership in thei r group. The level two so cial characteristic describes the literacy events through wh ich the teacher and the actors constructed knowledge in the context of the rehearsals. In the following section, I report the anal ysis of the characteristics of the play, beginning with the contextual characteristic, followed by the intertextual characteristic, and ending with the social characteristic. The Contextual Characteristic The Sociohistorical Context In the contextual feature Cowan (2005) de scribed the existence of icons and the visual literacy events that stimulated the Latino adolescent sÂ’ responsivene ss to the icons. In this study, the contextual characteristic desc ribes the literacy events that stimulated the Latino/a adolescentsÂ’ awareness of the sociohis torical context as well as their awareness of the contemporary social context in whic h the play was situated. I observed three literacy events that aroused the Latino/a adol escentsÂ’ awareness of the sociohistorical context. On days 4, 5, and 9, Mrs. R. explained the importance of costumes in conveying the poverty of Mexican farm workers in the 1920s and 30s by providing some information on the sociohistorical context. Th e first of the three l iteracy events that
181 aroused the Latino/a adolescentsÂ’ awareness of the historical context occurred on day 4, when a video of the previous classÂ’s performance was shown for the first time, and Mrs. R. drew the actorsÂ’ attention to the sociohist orical context by referring to the actorsÂ’ costumes, Â“You saw the farm clothing. This is 1924.Â” Mrs. R. encouraged the actor s to bring in costumes th at accurately portrayed the plain clothing of the 1930sÂ’ farm workers. She made it clear that sneakers or attire representing the 21st century were not appropriate saying, Â“This is 1924. Guys, donÂ’t wear sneakers.Â” Mrs. R. emphasized that poor Mexican farm workers often wore second hand clothing several sizes too large for their undernourished bodies. Mrs. R. also emphasized that many farm workers did not have enough money to buy shoes and told the actors that their co stumes should include, Â“sa ndals and no shoes.Â” The second event occurred on day 5. On that day, rather than showing the video, Mrs. R. simply explained the sociohistorical context saying, Â“ Esperanza Rising is about country farmers in 1924, 1930. It takes place in the dust of the desert and is about poverty. YouÂ’re not working in an office. Y ouÂ’re supposed to be campesinos, not pants down to there, like Cantinflas.Â” Cantinflas wa s the name of the legendary comic Mrs. R. referred to as the Charlie Chaplin of the Me xican cinema. Her reference to Cantinflas generated laughter among the actors. However, Mr s. R. used the reference to Cantinflas to underscore the idea that the actorsÂ’ costumes were not supposed to reflect the clownÂ’s comedy, but the farm workersÂ’ dignity. To describe the farm work ersÂ’ attire, Mrs. R. bro ught out the painting of the barefoot Esperanza floating over the fields in a plain, loose fitting, ankle-length dress. Â“Tell me if you know what scene this is,Â” sh e asked and confirmed their response, Â“Yes,
182 when sheÂ’s floating up in the air.Â” Mrs. R. emphasized that 21st century dresses were inappropriate, but rather they should be la rge and shabby, describing them as Â“big, old stuff.Â” She suggested that the actors ask th eir parents if they had any old clothes. The actorsÂ’ awareness of the sociohistorical context was stimulated further on day 5 when Mrs. R. announced each characterÂ’s na me and described his or her appropriate costume with a single word or brief phrase. Â“M am: conservative. Abuelita is an elegant woman, a woman of money: a black dress, loos e dress. Isabel is a country girl without shoes, hopping around (Mrs. R. demonstrated by waving her arms about). Narrator: you need to dress up.Â” Mrs. R. characterized Spanish and Latin American grandmothersÂ’ Discourses, represented by the custom of carry ing lace handkerchiefs in their sleeves. She said that this custom reminded her of the ch aracter of Abuelita in the novel. In order to create awareness of the sociohistorical cont ext, Mrs. R. used se veral opportunities to contrast the wealthy Mexican landowner Discourses with the Mexican American farm worker Discourses in Califor nia during the 1920s and 30s. Certain kinds of apparel also reminded the actors about familiar Discourses. On day 14, Patricia brought in her costum e, the long, loose-fitting black dress. She also brought in a large black suit jack et. After examining the jacket, Lu is tried it on and swaggered around, sliding across the floor in the style of the pachuco character in the Latino play Zoot Suit Some years before I learned the term pachuco from Latino students, but I had never seen anyone enact the pachuco character as Luis and Mario di d on day 14. In their actions, I recognized the historical context the other Latino students had desc ribed and guessed that the black jacket probably reminded Luis and Mario of the pachuco character popularized in movies, such as the film version of the play Zoot Suit In Mario and LuisÂ’s almost all-male
183 class that day, a Latino student told the teach er Â“You donÂ’t watch the kind of movies I doÂ” in response to the teacherÂ’s que stion about why the boys did not act more respectful, that is, more in keeping with what she explained was their heritage. Later that day, during the rehearsal of the song Las Maanitas Mario tucked in his T-shirt and put on the jacket. With his hands in his pockets, he pushed the suit jacket back to reveal his T-shirt, and leaned back in the characteristic stance of the pachuco character. These events showed that sociohistorical Di scourses were recognized through articles of clothing in both Mrs. R.Â’s and the actorsÂ’ e xperiences. Their performa nces gave the actors the opportunity to act out what th ey valued as their heritage. The Contemporary Context The contextual characteristic describes the literacy events that aroused the Latino/a adolescentsÂ’ awareness of the contem porary social context. On day 4, the top news story everywhere was the nationw ide marches protesting a controversial immigration reform bill being debated in the Senate. More than three hundred students were absent from school, and only 5 of the 12 students who regularly attended the afterschool program came to the rehearsal that af ternoon. Only Mario refe rred to the absences asking, Â“How many people didn Â’t come to school?Â” Although no one spoke about the issue directly, the news bore a striking sim ilarity to the sociohistorical context of Esperanza Rising described in the authorÂ’s notes. In the authorÂ’s notes, Muoz -Ryan (2000) related stories her grandmother told her about the struggles Mexican immigrants a nd Mexican Americans faced in the United States during the economic turmoil of th e Great Depression. This catastrophic economic downturn began to affect the nation in 1929. In March of that year, the Deportation Act
184 became a law driven by the belief that rising unemployment was caused by Mexicans. During the next six years, almost half a million Mexicans, many of whom were born in the United States, and therefore citizens, were deported. As Muoz -Ryan stated, some historians put the figure closer to a million. With the exception of Mario, none of the participants referred to the contemporary context during the rehearsals. Ho wever, in her reflective response, Diana alluded to Muoz-RyanÂ’s di scussion of the Deportation Act of 1929 saying, Â“What I liked about the play was that we learned a lo t of things like in Lo s Angeles, immigration would take you even if you were born here in those times.Â” DianaÂ’s words demonstrated that she juxtaposed Discourses of immigrati on legislation in order to understand, critique and reflect on them, noting that they spoke to one another across history. The Intertextual Characteristic The intertextual characteristic describes the modes of meaning multimodal designers draw from to create their texts. Th e intertextual characteristic also describes events that initiate actors into the Me xican performance Discourse. The modes of meaning were linguistic (spoken and written la nguage), visual (pai ntings, costumes and props, a video of a former groupÂ’s play), audio (a traditional song, sound effects), gestural (the stamp of a f oot, a downward-pointed finger, body language), spatial (the meanings of positions on the stage, the physical arrangement), and multimodal, or a combination of two or more modes of meaning (The New London Group, 1996). Designing Meaning The actors drew from the elements of the six modes of meaning to project an emotion or to create a mood, that is, to de sign meaning. For example, linguistic design
185 includes spoken and written language and visu al modes of meaning and the actors drew from elements of visual design in paintings scripts, props, costumes, and the former groupÂ’s video. On day 1, Mrs. R. propped the large painting of Esperanza against a table in the front of the classroom. The painting depicted the dark-haired, barefoot Esperanza wearing a yellow dress and floating above the fields. Drawing meaning from this painting, Mrs. R. showed Eva how to rotate in a spiraling motion, her arms extended like wings. Eva watched and tried to duplicate Mr s. R.Â’s movements, but she was having trouble projecting the feeling of flying. Mrs. R. described the feeling saying, Â“Like when you think youÂ’re dizzy. YouÂ’re dreaming.Â” Eva watched and tried again, but it was difficult to pull off what Mrs. R. wanted. On the day of the performance, the audience was positioned to draw meaning from the multimodal design in Mrs. R.Â’s words and the visual discourse in a special painting. Mrs. R.Â’s prologue and the special painting positioned the parents and other family members to stir their memories of ho me. Mrs. R. drew the audienceÂ’s attention to the enormous oil painting of EsperanzaÂ’s Mexican home, El Rancho de las Rosas situated in the center of th e stage. With vibrant hues of green and red, the huge expressionistic painting was the only piece of scenery on stage, with the exception of the rising Esperanza painting propped against the podium. Drawing from the meaning encoded in the paintingÂ’s visual discourse, Mrs. R. described the underlying narrative of EsperanzaÂ’s former idyl lic life before it was disrupted by misfortune. Mrs. R. also drew meaning from the way the painting came to exist. She explained how the painting was originally sketched by a Latino youth, and then finished by anot her artist whose help Mrs. R. enlisted. The audience of parents a nd grandparents was captivated by these
186 extemporaneous recollections, confirming the power of oral performance, which as Ong (1982) stated, depends on memory systems. The actors drew from many elements of linguistic design to create meaning, e.g. delivery, vocabulary, metaphor, and informa tion structures. Delivery, which included intonation, stress, rhythm, and accent, were important elements. However, information structures and vocabulary were also significant in the constr uction of meaning. In one of EvaÂ’s practice readings early in the play production, the words sacrificio que hice were written on the board. These words caused cons iderable confusion because of SpanishÂ’s pronoun-drop feature and the f act that the Spanish word que can be translated into English as both what and that Eva paused after the phrase con tanto sacrificio [with all the hard work], and made the next phrase, que hice a question [what does he do?] using rising intonation. In the script, however, the ph rase was an exclamation [with all the hard work that I do!], as Mrs. R. explained by writing it on the board. The actors drew from audio modes of m eaning to create meaning in the sound Roberto tapped into the microphone to mimic th e heartbeat of the earth. Patricia and Eva also drew from elements of audio and linguist ic modes of meaning to create meaning in the flashback and signal that the play was tr ansporting the audience back to the past. On day 11, Patricia practiced the line offstage fo r the first time, and Mrs. R. encouraged her to put a lot of expression into it saying, Â“You have to say it nicely. Like very sexy.Â” After the introductions, several seconds of silence communicated audio meanings, emphasizing the suspense of the upcoming scen es. After a minute, the silence was broken and the voice of Abuelita, EsperanzaÂ’s gr andmother, was heard through the microphone. In this flashback, Abuelita asked if Espe ranza remembered the story of the phoenix, a
187 bird that rose from its own ashes and Espe ranza answered yes, she did. Drawing from elements of linguistic modes of meaning to narrate the mythological story, Abuelita reminded Esperanza that they were like th e metaphorical phoenix rising from the ashes to be reborn into a new existence. Drawing from elements of audio modes of meaning, the girlsÂ’ voices seemed to emerge from the distan t past to project the feeling that historic events were about to unfold once again. By m odifying the script to include the flashback, the participants drew from elements of lingui stic modes of meaning in the design element of global coherence, that is, the historical fiction genre. The participants established themselves as multimodal text designers by combining elements of the six modes of meaning to create an inte resting, dynamic production. The actors drew from elements of spatia l modes of meaning in stage positions, which affected other modes of meaning. Fo r example, when the group of actors was introduced to the newly arrived Abuelita, th ey formed a large circle. Arranged in the circle, the actors were introduced individuall y. As each actor stepped into the center, he or she greeted Abuelita, and then took a step b ack into the circle to give the audience an unobstructed view of the next actor to step forward. The actors drew from elements of gestural modes of meaning in facial expressions (e.g. a raised eyebrow), body language (the st amp of a foot), and movement (skipping onto the stage, or hurrying off stage). To create multimodal meanings, they combined gestural and linguistic meanings in dynamic ways, such as EvaÂ’s irritated stamp of her foot on the second syllable Â‘ puedoÂ’ in the sentence Â“No pue do creerlo!Â” [I canÂ’t believe it!]. When Miguel arrived, Eva impatiently st amped her foot again on the second syllable
188 of the word, Â‘trajiste,Â’ in th e question Â“Trajiste lo que me robaste?Â” [Did you bring back what you stole from me?]. After the flashback, the curtain opened, a nd Roberto (the narrator) entered from the right, dressed in a black dress shirt and black trousers. Drawing on gestural modes of meaning, he raised an index finger and trac ed a downward arc, ending at the floor. His gesture emphasized the declaration of Mi guelÂ’s guilt: Â“De eso, no hay duda!Â” [Of this, there is no doubt!]. RobertoÂ’s multimodal meaning connected the theme of anger announced in Mrs. R.Â’s prologue to EvaÂ’s words, helping to cr eate the playÂ’s conflict. Being Initiated The intertextual characteri stic describes more than how designers draw from the elements of the modes of meaning to design thei r texts. The intertextual characteristic also describes events that initiated the actors in to the Mexican performance Discourse. With its concentration of complex gestures and movement s, the rising scene initiated the actors into one of the most important aspects of the Mexican performance Discourse: the danza indgena or indigenous ritual dan ce. I was familiar with th e indigenous ritual dance, having read a vivid account in RodriguezÂ’s autobiography, Always Running, La vida loca: Gang days in L.A. (Rodriguez, 1993). So when I saw th e circular patterns enacted in the rising scene on day 1, I instantly recognized its similarity to the dance Rodriguez described. As I learned through more reading, the indige nous ritual dance wa s introduced as a folkloric element of the 1970Â’s renaissance of Chicano/a pride, the Teatro Campesino (Broyles-Gonzalez, 1994). Just as the rising sceneÂ’s ritual dance initiated me, it also initiated the actors into this central elem ent of the Mexican performance Discourse.
189 On day 1, while Mrs. R. coached Eva about which gestures to use to convey the theme of transformation through the ritual danc e, the other actors looked on, observing how she performed the complex gestural mode s of meaning. Their observations initiated them into the play in which gestures we re indispensable in conveying meaning and helped them understand their si gnificance. As the rehearsals progressed, they drew on this knowledge of gestures to create th eir characters using ap propriate gestures, movements, and facial expressions. The intertextual characteri stic not only describes how the actors drew from the elements of the modes of meaning, but also describes how they were initiated into the Mexican performance Discourse. Being initiated into the Mexican performance Discourse was a team-building, self-affirming cultural event. For, as McLuhan (1964) stated, whereas print isolates, oral performance connects, invo lving people in a process of building consensus on performance rule s and organization, which supports the communityÂ’s memory and preserves its practices. The Social Characteristic CowanÂ’s (2005) social feature described th e visual literacy events in which the Latino adolescents created, exhibited, and exch anged their drawings. In this case study, the social characteristic de scribed literacy events in which two different groups participated. The level one social characterist ic described a unique l iteracy event in which several Latina adolescents constructed meani ngs. This event occurred after school, but was connected to an assignment for class. The level two characteristic described the literacy events in which the Latino/a adol escents and the Latina teacher constructed knowledge and meanings in the play production. Since I wanted to id entify the events in
190 terms of their context and the strategies through which they were managed, I analyzed these literacy events using Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990), and nested them within the level two social characteristic. The Level One Social Characteristic This characteristic describes a literacy event in which the Latina adolescents constructed identities. Cartoon characters were popular among the Latina adolescents. Diana was noticeably devoted to the Tweety bird charac ter and had several di fferent Tweety bird tshirts that she wore often. One depicted a la rge Tweety bird below her name in red script, while another was black with a shiny gold Tw eety bird. A third one depicted Tweety bird wearing a cowboy hat surrounded by the words Â“E veryone loves a cowgirl.Â” On the last day of school, Diana spent several minutes tracing a Tweety bird from a book of line drawings of the character (Field notes, 5/06). The actions and personality of this iconic character combine charm, innocence, and savvy in a survivor who prevails despite the threats of the adversarial cat, Sylvester. In their ESOL class, the students had a final poster presentation, which was due one week before the performance. The assignm ent was to create a summary of what the students had learned all year. Th ese posters were to be used as wall decorations in the auditorium on the day of the performance. Diana created two posters, submitting them one month before the due date. Affixed to each of the four corners, and in other places on the posters, was the image of a sleeping yell ow Tweety bird covered with a light blue blanket. In the posterÂ’s titles: Â“IÂ’m tired of Mrs. RÂ’s classÂ” and Â“Mrs. RÂ’s work made me tired,Â” Diana positioned herself as Tweety bird by using the pronoun I and connecting it
191 with the word tired to the sleeping cartoon character. By using active voice in one title and passive voice in the other, Diana drew on the element of transitivity in linguistic design, that is, active and passive voice. On her posters, Dian a pasted computer-generated written texts, describing the nove ls the class had read and topi cs researched, including an African country, and health issues. She also wrote about the vocabulary and grammar the class had studied. Diana outlined these written te xts with glitter. Mrs. R. used the posters as models of exemplary work to remi nd students of the posterÂ’s due date. Lisa and Laura shared their plans for thei r poster designs in th eir interviews. Their designs borrowed elements that Diana had used, in particular the use of cartoon characters. Lisa described her poster design as including Â“four pictures in the corners of Winnie the Pooh.Â” Laura also mentioned plan s to include cartoon images in her poster saying that she would use glitte r and pictures of Hello Kitty. Lisa also described the texts she planned to write saying, Â“IÂ’m going to type in the computer at home.Â” According to Maguire and Graves (2001), Â“BakhtinÂ’s (1986) concept of speaking personality offers a means of conceptualizing ch ildrenÂ’s biliteracy as socioculturally mediated activities and social interactionsÂ” (p. 561 [italics in original]). Maguire and Graves explored Â“the relationship between L2 writing and identity constructionÂ” in a study of three primary school girlsÂ’ written texts and discovered Â“a subtle indication of the girlsÂ’ social identity, bonds of friendship, and membership in this social network was the little clouds they drew ar ound the titles of their journal entriesÂ” (p. 575). This research confirmed the findings in Maguire and Grav esÂ’ study and demonstrat ed that the cartoon characters and the glitter we re signs of the girlsÂ’ soci al identity, friendship, and membership in the group. Each girl chose a different cartoon character to distinguish her
192 identity while at the same time connecting wi th the group through the elements of visual design. The slight difference between the pr imary-school-aged stude ntsÂ’ practices in Maguire and GravesÂ’ study and the middleschool-aged adolescents Â’ practices can be explained as the construction of a more we ll-developed, unique iden tity (Erikson, 1968). These practices occurred because one st udent, Diana, initiated them by submitting her posters early, which attracted considerab le attention. The poste rsÂ’ early completion facilitated the literacy practice of design sharing. After the rehearsal on da y 8, the actors returned to the classroom to pi ck up their belongings before leaving. Most left right away, but Lena, Laura, and Patricia stood together in a group and read DianaÂ’s two posters, which counted as one of the final grades in the class. The girls looked at DianaÂ’s posters and talked about them before asking Mrs. R. if they could take some books home. Receiving permission, the girls went to the counter, made their selections, and returned to the board to write the titles under their names. Diana was a literacy leader because her literacy practices influenced other studentsÂ’ literacy practices in significant ways. The Level Two Social Characteristic This characteristic describe s the literacy events through which Mrs. R. and the actors constructed cultural meanings and knowledge. According to Vygotsky (1978), higher mental functions originate in relationships between individuals and, through a sequence of events; this interpersonal process eventually becomes an intrapersonal process. VygotskyÂ’s study of these interpsychological processes, Wertsch (1991) stated, involved descri bing Â“the interaction of the adult-child dyadÂ” (p. 46). The teache r-actor dyads in the rehearsals reflected interpsychological processes. The teacher-actor interactions, as well as the interactions
193 between the actors, illustrated VygotskyÂ’s (1978) theory that learning Â“creates the zone of proximal development; that is, learning awak ens a variety of internal developmental processes that are able to ope rate only when the child is interacting with people in his environment and in cooperati on with his peersÂ” (p. 90). On day 1, Mrs. R. positioned herself as a model for the novice actor, Eva, who played Esperanza. The rising scene was a scen e of little dialogue, but many gestures and movements. EvaÂ’s learning was mediated through Mrs. R.Â’s instructions and gestures, as the other actors watched. VygotskyÂ’s model, as Rogoff (1990) asserted, Â“resembles apprenticeship, in which a novice works closely with an expert in joint problem solving in the zone of proximal developmentÂ” (p. 141). As Eva adjusted her performance based on Mrs. R.Â’s repeated modeling, the cognitive work was shared between themÂ—the actor delivering the line and Mrs. R. advising her on how to improve. Through a gradual process that took place over many rehearsals, Mrs. R. ceded the role to the actor and assumed the position of audience. Palinczar a nd Brown (1984) referred to this social Â“context of instructionÂ” as Â“s ituations where a noviceÂ…carries out simple aspects of the task while observing and learning from an expe rt, who serves as a model for higher level involvementÂ” (p. 123). Watching Eva and Mrs. R. on day 1, the ac tors experienced a preview of future practices. Learning contexts in the first stage of the play seemed to be arranged, as Gee (2003) stated, Â“so that earlier cases lead to gene ralizations that are fru itful for later casesÂ” (p. 137). By observing Eva and Mrs. R. as they enacted a process of modeling and repetition, Mario appropriated cu ltural resources. One of thes e resources was the task of memorization, which he differentiated into three areas: memorization of the Â“partsÂ”
194 (scenes), what Â“to sayÂ” in the script (lines), and Â“where to standÂ” (positions). As Mario progressed gradually from observation to practice, he progressed from legitimate peripheral participation, as Lave and Wenger (1 991) stated, to full participation. His full participation was evident in one of the final rehearsals. As the final performance approached MarioÂ’s seriousness and engagement became increasingly apparent. One of the most unusual rehearsals was day 18 because it took place during class time. Other students we re eating lunch in th e cafeteria and the curtains on stage did not block the noise. Befo re Luis even realized he had missed the cue to announce the arrival of the bus from Los Ange les, Mario said the lin e, filling in for his brother. Not only was Mario alert and awar e of the cues, but he also expressed enjoyment. In opening the rehearsal, Mrs. R. announced there would only be one more rehearsal the next day, and Mario asked, w ith disappointment in his voice, Â“Why not today?Â” Modeling. Modeling was the primary strategy th e teacher used to scaffold the actorsÂ’ knowledge of how to project emotion by combining two or more elements of the modes of meaning, such as the elements of linguistic design (delivery, intonation, rhythm), and the elements of gestural desi gn (facial expressions, body language). In the scene at the fruit-sorting j ob, both EvaÂ’s (Esperanza I) questi on and LisaÂ’s (Josefina) exclamation required rising intonation to c onvey their worry about the imminent danger to their families, signaled by MarioÂ’s (Alf onso) sudden appearance. However, EvaÂ’s falling intonation prompted Mrs. R. to mode l an exaggerated rising intonation, which Eva repeated. After Mario delivered his line and Eva countered with hers, Mrs. R. was still dissatisfied with EvaÂ’s intonation. With ex aggerated intonation, Mrs. R. modeled the
195 staccato rhythm and rising intonation in th e question Â“Para que qui ere que vaya yo?Â” [Why do you want me to go?]. Eva repeated the question and Mario followed with his line, delivered in an expressionless tone. Employing the same procedure she had used with Eva, Mrs. R. modeled the intonation Ma rio needed to use a nd he repeated it. MarioÂ’s participation in this event wa s, as Palincsar and Brown (1984) stated, Â“first as a spectator, then as a novice respons ible for very little of the actual workÂ” (p. 123). After Mario observed the interaction betw een Eva and Mrs. R., it was his turn to act, changing from a spectator to a novice. Not only did Mario change from a spectator to a novice, but also his participat ion expanded in other ways over the course of rehearsals. For example, by assigning responsibility for th e placement of chairs (props) to Mario and his brother, Luis, Mrs. R. scaffolded their aw areness of the cues early on in the rehearsals and later, in the twelfth rehearsal, Ma rio announced the curtain cuesÂ—an advanced thinking roleÂ—while the teacher assumed the role of the audience. LuisÂ’s role also expanded and he gradually he assumed the unofficial role of deputy director. For example, on day 12, Luis directed the actors, wh ile Mrs. R. noted the features that needed improvement. The role of parody Parody was a response to au thority. Mrs. R. exercised authority in various ways. One of these ways occurred during the first 6 rehearsals when Mrs. R. used the term cutoff day to describe her power to remove an actor from the play. Mrs. R. also used the term to motivate the actors to invest in the play by following the rules. Mrs. R. drew meaning from the act orsÂ’ behavior and on day 1, when Eva (Esperanza) demonstrated her investment by scolding Javier (Miguel) for misbehavior, there were consequences. On day 6, Luis re placed him. On day 2, Diana was allowed to
196 share the role of Esperanza with Eva. Diana told me she originally played the part, but was replaced by Eva when she did not follow Mrs. R.Â’s directions. Some of the actors engaged in the prac tice they called playing around, or playing. As the Discourse analysis revealed, this prac tice was a game that i nvolved teasing peers, or authority figures and gauging their reactio ns. The Discourse model of playing around that affected actions and practices held that causing targetsÂ—adults or peersÂ—to react was entertaining. One of the ways the actors engaged in the practice of playing around was through parody. On day 1, the girls intr oduced two examples of paro dy. On that day, Eva played the role of Esperanza in the rising scene, th e scene assigned to Diana on day 2. Diana told me that she was the original Esperanza, but Mrs. R. replaced her for not following Mrs. R.Â’s instructions. So Diana had to ask Mrs. R. if she could have a part in the play. On day 2, Diana played Esperanza in the rising scene. To begin the rising scene rehearsal, Eva (Esperanza) lay down on the carpeted classroom floor and looked up at the ceili ng. As Eva looked up at the ceiling, Roberto narrated in Spanish explaining that Espera nza was Â“looking at the clouds.Â” As soon as Roberto said, Â“looking at the clouds,Â” Linda (H ortensia), and severa l other girls who had been watching the interaction, re peated EvaÂ’s line from the play, the extremely sarcastic utterance, Â“Uh-huh.Â” They repeated it in uni son, with a tone so sa rcastic that it was impossible not to recognize its origin. The girl s smiled and giggled with obvious pleasure at their ingenuity in adding their voices to EvaÂ’ s as their utterances came into contact, or interanimated each other (Wertsch, 1991, p. 54).
197 Parody had an underlying aspect of a ggression. For example, on day 1, Mrs. R. directed Eva to close her eyes in order to pr oject more emotion in the ritual dance saying, Â“Like when you thinkÂ…youÂ’re dizzy. YouÂ’re dr eaming.Â” As soon as Eva closed her eyes, Diana stepped toward Eva to offer assistance. Diana borrowed Mrs. R.Â’s word Â“dizzy,Â” and began to guide Eva in a circle saying w ith a broad smile, Â“IÂ’ll make you feel dizzy!Â” As soon as Diana said this, the other girls giggled. They guessed DianaÂ’s speech genre Â“from the very first wordsÂ” (Bakhtin, 1986, p. 79). Â“In each utterance,Â” Bakhtin (1981) stated, we Â“sense the speakerÂ’s speech plan or speech will Â” (p. 77 [italics in original]). Eva was seriously following Mrs. R.Â’s rules, but DianaÂ’s speech plan revealed that she was playing around. Since Eva had replaced Dian a, DianaÂ’s playing around by offering to make Eva feel dizzy was somewh at aggressive behavior In his narration on day 10, Roberto desc ribed the bus stati on scene prior to MiguelÂ’s arrival. Next, Mrs. R. announced, Â“A bus from Los Angeles has arrived,Â” and Luis (Miguel) entered the stage area, stretc hing his arms as if he had just awakened. Waiting to greet Miguel, Mario (Alfonso) di srupted the seriousness with the command, Â“Re-do it,Â” a parodic re-voicing of Mrs. R.Â’s typical reques t for repetition. Then, in a parody of the welcome between Â‘fatherÂ’ (Alf onso) and Â‘sonÂ’ (Miguel), the real-life brothers, Mario and Luis, greeted each other with a hearty handshake and the words, Â“WhatÂ’s up, man?Â” In the context of the seri ous rehearsal, the boysÂ’ greeting was playing around. On day 12, when Laura was substituting for Eva, Mario played around to try to make her react by swaggering as he entered the stage area, exaggerating his steps and physical presence. His brother Luis encourag ed him with a parodi c re-voicing of Mrs.
198 R.Â’s request for repetition saying, Â“Do it ag ain! Do it again!Â” Both boys engaged in playing around by trying to cause a reaction. If Mrs. R. scolded them, perhaps Laura would react to them. The way in which the actors used par ody and the practice of playing around was similar in some ways to the Mexican concept of relajo Although relajo is defined in various ways, its quality as Â“a disruptive group cheekinessÂ” (Broyles-Gonzalez, 1994, pp. 28-29) best defines it in this case. Relajo is cheekiness and the way the actors used parody was irreverent and mocking. Understa nding relajo is importa nt to understanding Â“the Mexican popular culture of laughterÂ” (p. 30). A vital el ement of the Mexican popular performance Discourse, relajo uses parody and other techniques to express opposition to authority. This oppositional relationship to au thority is linked to BakhtinÂ’s (1984) notion of the carnivalesque, which Â“conceptualizes laug hter as a patently oppositional tool of the popular massesÂ” (p. 30). Relajo is cheekiness or mockery and so was the actorsÂ’ discourse practice of parody or playing around with language. What would your character think? In order for the actors to use the correct elements of the gestural modes of m eaning, Mrs. R. had to work in their zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) and help them imagin e how their characters would think. For example, Lisa and Eva were enacting the fr uit-sorting scene, when Lisa delivered her line, Â“Seran los bebes!Â” [It must be the childre n] with a declarative tone, rather than the expected exclamatory intonation. Also, she di d not exit in a hurried manner. Mrs. R. realized that modeling alone ha d not proven helpful in scaffo lding LisaÂ’s internalization of the correct emotion to project through her intonation and movements. Mrs. R.Â’s recognition of LisaÂ’s failure to project the correct elements of th e gestural modes of
199 meaning was a triggering event (Palincsar and Brown, 1984), which signaled a comprehension failure requiring clearing up through Â“active processing strategiesÂ” (p. 118). Mrs. R.Â’s strategy to scaffold LisaÂ’s comprehension was designed to encourage her to project worry. Mrs. R. explained that LisaÂ’s character, Josefina, was imagining the purpose behind MarioÂ’s (AlfonsoÂ’ s) sudden visit, namely to inform her about her children. Mrs. R. explained how to express the appropriate level concern saying, Â“YouÂ’re like wondering Â‘why is he there?Â’Â” When Mrs. R. explained what Jose fina would think, it encouraged Lisa to think the same way a nd project the appropriate concern by adopting the correct elements of the gestural modes of meaning. The interact ion between Mrs. R. and the actor demonstrated th at the strategy of imagining what your character would think enabled the actors to combine the elements of lingui stic and gestural modes of meaning to project emotion. Symbols of participation. Every community of practice, Wenger (1998) stated, Â“produces abstractions, tools, symbols, stories, terms, and concepts th at reify something of that practice in a congealed formÂ” (p. 59). The video represented the negotiated set of performance conventions, that is it reified the communityÂ’s ru les into a concrete form. The community built consensus around this common se t of conventions when Mrs. R. critiqued the former groupÂ’s costumes and gestures in the videotaped performance. On day 9, Mrs. R. announced they would use a forty-minute de lay caused by a teachersÂ’ meeting to watch the video. Mrs. R. stood next to the television and told the actors to notice the costumes and action. Five of the actors had already seen th e video on day 4 and they led the laughter at
200 the incongruity of AbuelitaÂ’s short contemporary-style dress compared to the plain, loosefitting farm dress worn by the girl who played Esperanza. On day 4, the video was used as the m odel for imitation, but on day 9, it was also used as a source for critique. Â“I donÂ’t see action,Â” Mrs. R. stated, Â“the words are better than the action. We can see the erro rs they made.Â” Luis agreed saying, Â“ThatÂ’s all messed up!Â” This event showed that the actors adopted the video as one of their two important tools in the play production. The video reified the pe rformance communityÂ’s set of conventions, which the actors described in the Discourse m odel of being responsible. The video began as the communityÂ’s set of conventions on day 1, as Mrs. R. referred to EvaÂ’s rising scene gestures saying, Â“She needs to do it again.Â” Eva laughed nervously and Mrs. R. capitalized on her laughter saying, Â“ThereÂ’s going to be hours and hours of work until it looks like the video.Â” Acting in a certain way. According to Bourdieu (1977), the conditions that constitute a particular class, produce habitus a set of dispositions. These dispositions guide individuals to act in certain ways and are acqui red through inculcation in childhood. The Latina teacher, guided by a certain set of dispositions tried to inculcate these dispositions in the actors during the play production. This set of dispositions included linguistic and social cap ital, such as the language of social introductions, or Mrs. R.Â’s request to Luis on day 7, Â“Please donÂ’t do that. ItÂ’s in poor ta ste.Â” In addition to linguistic and social capital, other dispositions included posture, walking with a firm gait, and bowing. This set of disposi tions guided the participants to act and speak in certain ways.
201 As Bourdieu (1991) stated, disposi tions are acquired through the childhood process of inculcation, which makes differen ces comprising arbitrary cultural limits (e.g. masculine and feminine) seem natural. For example, one of the dispositions Mrs. R. tried to inculcate was the different iation of male and female roles in assigning the boys to move the chairs. The disposition that Â“ladies are delicate and sophisticated; theyÂ’re soft,Â” was meant to guide Luis to act with care a nd respect toward Diana. Another disposition, Â“girls are sophisticated,Â” enc ouraged the girls to adopt the disposition to act without using physical behavior toward each other (Field notes, 5/06). Summary The level two social characteristic describe s the literacy events in which the actors participated during the play pr oduction. The analysis of thes e literacy even ts revealed five findings. First, actors became more pr oficient by observing p eers as well as from their own experiences. Second, modeling was the principal strategy to promote the actorsÂ’ appropriation of new cultural resources, such as the elements of linguistic and gestural modes of meaning. Third, pa rody was related to the practice of relajo a vital element of the Mexican oral performance Di scourse. Fourth, Mrs. R. scaffolded the actors as they learned to read the actions of other actors to be able to project meaning into their performance. Fifth, a set of dispos itions, including linguistic and social capital, guided the participants to act and speak in certain ways. Validation/Invalidation Mrs. R. assigned the actors to wr ite a reflective response on the Monday following the final performance and wrote a list of questions on the board to serve as a guide for the responses. The list consisted of 7 questions: your partic ipation in the playÂ—
202 rehearsal and performance, how long did you wo rk on preparing for it, how was the play in your opinion, what did you learn, how did you help others, your parentsÂ’ cooperation, and would you have changed something? Of the13 actors, 11 completed a written text. Of these 11, 9 validated the final performance. One actor, Luis, also validated th e final performance in his oral text. Luis refused to be interviewed during the pe riod of fieldwork, but agreed to a postperformance interview after I telepho ned his father and requested one. These findings are presented in two parts: part one describes the actorsÂ’ validation of the final performance in their written texts and, in the case of Luis, his validation of the final performance in both his written and oral texts. In part one, validation occurred in the post-performance context of positive parent al regard. Part two describes the actorsÂ’ invalidation of their rehearsal performances. In part two, the actorsÂ’ invalidation of their rehearsal performances displa yed their moral principles. Validation of the Final Performance Validation of the final performance was re vealed in the post-performance context of positive parental regard. Nine of the el even actors who wrote reflective responses validated the final performance. In her refl ective response, Diana validated not only her performance, but also EvaÂ’s saying, Â“We di d a good job.Â” In her text, Diana put an evaluative model to use, recognizing that successful performances are the result of collaboration and teamwork. She admitted that her successful performance depended on others, and validated Mrs. R.Â’s decision to sp lit the role of Esperanza. Diana cited the challenge of portraying the ritual dance in the rising scene saying, Â“the difficulty I had was when I was supposed to float up in the air to the sky.Â” She validated the final
203 performance in terms of its improvement sa ying the Â“play was better than 2 years ago.Â” Despite the struggle brought on by change Di ana validated the performance saying, Â“We still did a good job.Â” In the prologue to the performance, Mrs. R. referred to the authorÂ’s note, in which Muoz-Ryan described the differences between th e real events in her familyÂ’s history and the novel. Diana alluded to these texts in a reference to the Deportation Act of 1929 noting, Â“What I liked about the play was that we learned a lot of things like in Los Angeles, immigration would take you even if you were born here in those times.Â” The relevance of the sociohistorical context to her contemporary context revealed the significance this genre had on Diana. Diana validated her performance by constructing her character as a person who valued taki ng on personal challenges, learned to make improvements, and collaborate with others for the holistic aims of the project. Lisa validated her performance in he r reflective response by proudly claiming the character Josefina as he r project from the initial stages of the play stating, Â“I was Josefina first.Â” Lisa put an evaluative model to use with improvement as the key criterion for measuring success. For example, she admitte d following directions was difficult stating, Â“For me it was hard to do it well,Â” but in the context of positive parental regard she validated her final performance saying, Â“Toda y it was easy for me.Â” Like the other actors, she thought of the proj ect as teamwork, saying the play Â“was easy because we were working hard, and we tried our best .Â” She validated the final performance by realizing they all struggled to make the performance successful. Lena validated her performance in her reflective response in the context of parental regard stating, Â“My parents liked the playÂ” and Â“in my opinion the play was
204 good.Â” Following these lines, Lena listed a number of struggles she had to overcome: learning to focus, stand up straight, keep her hands behind her back, and look at the audience. In experiencing th ese personal struggles, she rea lized they were intertwined with other actorsÂ’ struggles and saw everyone as committed. In the last two lines, she put to use an evaluative model that values co mmitment saying the play was perfect because of two actions: first, all the actors were prompt, and second, if they left the play, they were replaced, suggesting that the play wa s more important than any individual. In her reflective response, Patricia validat ed the actorsÂ’ level of accuracy in the final performance stating, Â“we did learn all the lines.Â” Like Diana, Luis, and others, PatriciaÂ’s use of the first person plural pronoun revealed that she considered the performance a team effort. Patricia put an evaluative model to use stating Â“we had to improve a lotÂ” to convey a perspective that improvement was a social good measured by the progress the group made give n their positions at the start. Patricia opened her text with Â“we had to improve a lotÂ” revealing th e instructional discourse she appropriated. She also said that the reason they had high st andards (Â“we had to do it very goodÂ”) was because they could not have errors in the fi nal performance (Â“so we couldnÂ’t do mistakes on that dayÂ”). In her text, we can hear the in structional discourse (Â“it has to be perfectÂ”). Although Nina began her reflective response with an invalidation of the actorsÂ’ performances during the rehearsals, she va lidated the final performance stating, Â“The performance was great.Â” Nina blamed the inst ructional discourse for the difficult of the rehearsals stating that Â“the re hearsal was hard because they ha d to change a lot of things.Â” Then she qualified her statement, admitting there were a few mistakes, and reappraised her validation saying, Â“We were good in the pe rformance.Â” Nina restated her affirmation
205 saying, Â“The play in my opinion was good,Â” but the effort put into the play (Â“we were trying our hardestÂ”) raised th e quality of the Â“goodÂ” rating. She also cited Â“change,Â” such as replacing students who did not want to participate as the re ason the rehearsal was hard. Linda validated the groupÂ’s accuracy in the final performance stating, Â“We did everything good.Â” She also valid ated the selection of the ch aracter she played saying, Â“I did like that characte r.Â” Jazmin validated the playÂ’s re -creation of the novel saying, Â“ Esperanza Rising was a very cool play.Â” Luis validated the final performance in both his oral and written texts. In his oral text, he validated the final performance sayi ng, Â“It was a good play,Â” and added Â“that we did,Â” with the first person plural pronoun reflecting his pr ide in the gr oupÂ’s production. Not only did Luis validate the actorsÂ’ i ndividual efforts on their projectsÂ—the charactersÂ—but he also attri buted their efforts to the overa ll success of the project as a whole. He validated his performance by saying that he helped other actors memorize, act, not laugh and be serious. When I asked him if he thought th e play only occurred because of the specific teacher, Luis answered with three Â“noÂ’s,Â” to validate the agency and integrity of the actorsÂ’ work. In his written text, Luis validated the performance twice. He started out with a general validation: Â“the performance was good.Â” Then, he disputed Mrs. R.Â’s doubts and validated the group: Â“she said that we were not going to do good, but we did.Â” According to Luis, he learned two things on the day of the presentation, first, Â“everyone was nervous,Â” and second, Â“at the end, everybody did good.Â” Luis used the first person plural pronoun Â‘weÂ’ to include everyone in his validation of the performance, demonstrating that he considered the performance a team effort.
206 In his interview, Mario validated the pl ay production by repeati ng three times that acting was Â“fun.Â” Mario was the only actor to use the word fun to describe the performance community. He also validated the performance in th e final rehearsal, politely requesting the others to be quiet sa ying, Â“Por favor, silenci o.Â” In his reflective response, Mario validated the final performan ce, contrasting his personal commitment to his character with Mrs. R.Â’s belief that th e play would be a mess. To demonstrate his commitment, Mario validated his individual pe rformance in his eigh t-line narra tive about earning money to purchase his costume. Like Lena and Lisa, Mario cited his parentsÂ’ opinions as validation of the performance, sayi ng that his parents liked the play and his citation for winning th e award for caring. Invalidation of the Rehearsal Performances In this section, I present my analysis of the actorsÂ’ invalidation of their rehearsal performances. In his reflective response Luis wrote, Â“at the end, everybody did good.Â” With the words Â“at the end,Â” Luis invalidated the rehearsal performances, implying that playing around did not occur in the context of the final performance because parents would disapprove. Luis also invalidated the re hearsal performances st ating that the actors performed well for their parents, but not for Mr s. R. His words alluded to day 10 when he disagreed with Mrs. R.Â’s warning that the pa rents would critique th e performance. Luis predicted that his parents w ould not criticize the final pe rformance because on that day, playing around, which was constructed in relati onship with Mrs. R.Â’s expectations would be lifted. LuisÂ’s words allude to MarioÂ’s st atement Â“I know my parents,Â” which expressed MarioÂ’s assurance that his parents would validate his performance.
207 Nina began her reflective response by i nvalidating the actorsÂ’ performances during the rehearsals, minimizing their quality with the words Â“kind of.Â” Nina used Â“playing aroundÂ” and Â“we were talkingÂ” to account for the performancesÂ’ low quality. Nina included herself in the gr oupÂ’s resistance by using the pronoun we Nina connected the teacherÂ’s instructional discourse with th e resistance stating, Â“the rehearsal was hard because they had to change a lot of things,Â” and Â“they had to change students because one didnÂ’t want to do it.Â” Nina distanced he rself from the problems created by the instructional discourse by using the pronoun they Nina empathized with the teacher for facing the daunting task of fixing the probl ems she created through the construction of the discourses. In the words Â“one didnÂ’t want to do it,Â” Nina distanced herself from Laura by constructing LauraÂ’s performance as not ca ring about the play, when Laura actually did care about it, but not in the way the others were doing it. Laura invalidated not only her performance, but also those of the teacher and other actors during the rehearsals in her reflective response sta ting, Â“Mrs. R was too bossy, and well, I got mad at her because it was not only me doing all the stuff.Â” Laura recognized her resistance (Â“I got madÂ”) as c onstructed in relationshi p with the teacherÂ’s expectations (Â“Mrs. R was too bossyÂ”). Laura blamed the instructional discourse and the teacherÂ’s performance for its effect on her. La ura recognized her performance as linked to feelings of anger because of how she believe d the instructional discourse positioned her. Laura blamed the instructional discourse and interpreted her standing up when the teacher asked for volunteers to leave as an act of resi stance stating, Â“I quit wh en I was in the play because Mrs. R. was too bossy.Â” Like ma ny Latino/a adolescents, Laura performed assessments of education in her resistances (Cammarota, 2004). Despite quitting the play,
208 in her interview Laura expresse d regret about leaving the pla y. On LauraÂ’s last day in the play, she carried a white t-shirt with Â“Army girl Â” written on it in glitte r. Laura told me her brother was a Marine, and her dream was to jo in the military. Her plan was to Â“go to high school. Then go to all of college. Then go to the army.Â” Resistance among Latino/a adolescents influe nces a variety of orientations to schooling from high achievement to dropping out (Cammarota, 2004). Laura evaluated the instructional discourse as hopeless because it ignored MarioÂ’s offensive behavior, which was part of the discourse of play ing around. She expressed her resistance by dropping out, although in her interv iew she stated that she wanted to be in the play, but implied only if it were more equitable. Mari o and Luis were from a different class and although Luis had a girlfriend (Diana), Mario found it difficult to make friends because the rest of the Latinas were afraid to be a ssociated with him, possibly due to his clothes and behavior. While Laura quit, Roberto expr essed resistance by physically moving away from the group. In her reflective response, Laura invalidated all the participantsÂ’ performances, and positioned Mrs. R.Â’s discou rse practices in collusion with the actorsÂ’ discourse practices by saying, Â“it wa s not only me doing all the stuff.Â” Patricia addressed how both context and resistance shaped the play. Patricia invalidated the random locations in which the rehearsals occurred as well as the actorsÂ’ rehearsal performances saying, Â“The things I would change about our play would be the place and the way some characters were.Â” Diana invalidated the actorsÂ’ rehearsal performances by stating that what she would change in future play productions would be the playing around. Tania invali dated the actorsÂ’ rehearsal performances by describing them using formal language saying they did not behave Â“well.Â”
209 Mario invalidated the actorsÂ’ performances stating Â“we were being bad and talked back,Â” and Â“we would not follow her inst ructions.Â” Mario connected the actorsÂ’ performances to the instructi onal discourse saying, Â“three da ys after the play began, Mrs. R. worried because we were talking and we renÂ’t practicing. She called my parents and the whole class went outside because she got tired of our talking.Â” In their reflective responses, Mario and the other actors invalid ated their rehearsal performances and displayed their honesty and moral principles. Conclusion In exploring what happened when 7th grade Latino/a adoles cents and their Latina teacher produced a play in an after-school program, I learned that the play was a performance community mediated by a set of discourse practices a nd tools, including a script and a video. Literacy, G ee (1989d) stated, Â“is seen as a set of discourse practices, that is, as ways of using language and maki ng sense both in speech and writingÂ” (p. 39). A major outcome of this performance comm unityÂ’s negotiations was a common set of rules represented in a video of the previous groupÂ’s performance. The video represented the playÂ’s memory system, a guide on whic h oral performance relies (Ong, 1982). The videoÂ’s history and the participantsÂ’ social practices framed thei r interactions, which Latour (1993) referred to as localizing moves a notion that includes objects and practices to extend the literacy-as-social-practices perspective. The videoÂ’s history and the participantsÂ’ practices in adopti ng it as one of their tools conn ected the participants to the previous performance community, transporting meanings and values and converting local practices into meanings important in other contexts (Bra ndt and Clinton, 2002).
210 A major outcome of this performance communityÂ’s negotiations was a common set of rules represented in a video of the previous groupÂ’s performance. The video represented the playÂ’s memory system, a gui de on which oral performance relies (Ong, 1982). The videoÂ’s history and the participantsÂ’ social practices framed their interactions, which Latour (1993) referred to as localizing moves a notion that includes objects and practices to extend the literacy -as-social-practices perspec tive. The videoÂ’s history and the participantsÂ’ practices in a dopting it as one of their tools connected the participants to the previous performance community, transp orting meanings and va lues and converting local practices into meanings important in other contexts (Brandt and Clinton, 2002). In exploring the relationship between th e actorsÂ’ discourse practices and their performance, three significant findings emer ged. First, all 13 actors used the Discourse model of being responsible, and 11 of the 13 ac tors used the Discourse model of playing around to recognize and explain their practices. These two Discourse models were the most salient of the seven Discourse models revealed in the Discourse analysis. Second, playing around was constructed in relations hip with the teacherÂ’s expectations and became an unmanageable binary. Third, afte r leaving the play, one actor constructed herself through a new critical discourse, wh ich created new meanings by critiquing both the instructional discourse and th e discourse of playing around. I explored the characteristics of the perf ormance: the contextual, the intertextual, and the social characteristics, and reached three findings. First, in the contextual characteristic, the findings revealed that in the performance community, one of the actors realized that Discourses of im migration in the historical co ntext of the novel spoke to Discourses of immigration in the current historic al context. This means that the Discourses
211 of immigration portrayed in th e novelÂ’s historical context, which Muoz-Ryan described in the authorÂ’s note, were evoked and mirrore d by the Discourses of immigration in the current historical context. For example, Diana wrote, Â“What I liked about the play was that we learned a lot of things lik e in Los Angeles, immigrati on would take you even if you were born here in those times.Â” In other word s, the play was personally meaningful to her because the Deportation Act of 1929 resonate d with her experience of the nationwide protests over the Sensenbrenner Bill under debate in Congress dur ing the course of the play production. DianaÂ’s recognition validated the play as an activity that broadened her Discourse maps. Nevertheless, the teacher missed or ignored many opportunities for critical analysis. For example, one rehearsal depicted a critical textual interpretation Diana apparently made, but the teacher missed or ignored. On day 7, Di ana limply raised her arms as she said the words Â“nunca temasÂ” [never be afraid], and on the rejoinder Â“empezar de nuevoÂ” [to start over], rolled her eyes as if disgusted. DianaÂ’s performance caused me to wonder if she was being critical of Mrs. R.Â’s accuracy-based a pproach and its emphasis on repetition, or if she was being critical of the noti on that, despite their oppression, immigrants should be content knowing that they can always start over again. Or perhaps Diana was being critical of both. The only time Mrs. R. hinted at being cri tical was in her performance in front of the parents. Second, in the intertextual characteristic, which descri bes the modes of meaning designers draw from to create their texts, the findings revealed that the actors drew from the elements of the modes of meaning to proj ect an emotion or to create a mood, that is, to design meaning. For instance, by drawing on the elements of both audio and linguistic
212 modes of meaning, the participants designed meaning in the flashback, which signaled that the play was transporting the audience to another historical context. By combining elements of the modes of meaning in dynamic ways the actors established themselves as multimodal text designers. The intertextual characteristic also describes events that initiate actors into the Mexican performa nce Discourse. One important event borrowed from this Discourse was the danza indgena or ritual indigenous dance. This dance initiated the actors into the Mexican performa nce Discourse, which was later revealed in an embodied allusion to the Latino zoot suit Discourse. Third, in the level one social characteristic the findings revealed that after reading DianaÂ’s posters, three other girls discussed a nd used cartoon charactersÂ’ icons and glitter as signs of their social identity and affiliati on. In the level two social characteristic three findings were revealed. First, Mrs. R. emphasized accuracy and modeling was the primary strategy used, but when modeling did not prove effective, she used meaning to explain what the character would think. Mean ing proved to be more successful. Second, parody was a response to the instructional discours e. In the sense that it was a response to authority, parody was sim ilar to the practice of relajo a vital element of the Mexican popular performance Discourse. Third, Mrs. R. used a set of dispositions and attempted to instill the disposi tions in the actors. In determining whether the actors validate d the final performance, I learned that 9 of the 11 actors who wrote reflective responses validated the final performance in their reflective responses. Most of them validated their final performan ce by how their parents constructed them as a result of their particip ation. In addition, one actor validated the final performance in his post-performance in terview. In their reflective responses, the
213 actors put an evaluative Discourse model to use, and rated th eir performance highly in the areas of responsibility, improvement and team work. The actors rated teamwork as equal to their individual effort. In addition to effort, the actors made knowledge of the conventions relevant to thei r successful performance. The third of YinÂ’s (2003) five criteria for quality case st udies states that the case must be approached through the consideration of alternative perspe ctives. Three of the thirteen actors were critical of the instructional discourse. In her post-exit interview, Laura was critical of the teacherÂ’s involveme nt in the construction of the discourses. Laura admitted that she really wanted to be in the play, but suggested she was unable to because of the playÂ’s inequity. In her refl ective response, Laura di rectly critiqued the teacherÂ’s injustice in punishing her when other actors were al so to blame. An equitable performance community would be characteri zed by a caring instructional discourse in which actors have at least an equal share of the control, are value d, have their voices heard, and are treated fairly. In their interviews, Roberto and Diana saw their participation as coerced by the vote. Diana identified it as an infringement on her right to choose other after-school activit ies. In their reflective res ponses, Roberto, Diana, Laura and others were critical and blamed Mrs. R. for her involvement in the construction of the discourses, while at the same time valid ating their group and individual efforts.
214 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS Introduction In this chapter, I present the conc lusions, implications, and educational significance of a naturalistic case study the purpose of which was to explore what happened when 7th grade Latino/a ELLs and their Latina teacher produced a play in the context of an after-school program and to determine the relationship between the participantsÂ’ discourse practices and their performance. In ad dition, I sought to describe the characteristics of the performance and to find out if the partic ipants validated their performances, and if so, how. The conclusions address these research questions, which were based on the main issue in the case. This issue was how to describe and understand the participantsÂ’ engagement with literacy practi ces and to explain their percep tions in order to facilitate culturally responsive pedagogy to support academic learning. I organized the conclusions into four sections: Limitations of Discourse Limitations of the Visual World, Multimodal Text Designers, and a Design for Perform ance Learning. Following the conclusions, I present the implications for administrators, te achers, and researchers, as well as offer some suggestions for further research. Lastly, I present the educationa l significance of the study.
215 Limitations of Discourse In exploring what happened when 7th grade Latino/a adoles cents and their Latina teacher produced a play in an after-school program, I learned th at the teacher was involved in the construction of the discourse s. One of these discourses, playing around, was constructed in relationship with the teach erÂ’s expectations and became an intractable binary. Framed by communities of practice theory (Wenger, 1998), this naturalistic case study conceptualized the participantsÂ’ c ontributions to lear ning through meaning, practice, and identity. Through their discour se, the participants made meaningful contributions to learning, and as Wenger st ated, the historical and social context structured and gave meaning to their activ ity. However, discourse is inadequate for reaching understandings of identity in practice because, as Wenger asserted, an identity in practice is not Â“discursive or reflective,Â” but rather Â“a lived experience of participation in specific communitiesÂ” (p. 151). Moreover, C onquergood (1991) stated, discourse Â“is not always and exclusively verbal: Issues and attitudes are expr essed and contested in dance, music, gesture, food, ritual artifact, symbolic action, as we ll as wordsÂ” (p. 189). Since I did not consider this definition of disc ourse, the methodology I employed did not allow me to collect, analyze and reach findings on th e participantsÂ’ contributions to learning through identity in practice. The experience of being a researcher crea ted the sense of being both audience and performer simultaneously. Moreover, experi encing the Â“world as performanceÂ” while trying to see and capture the Â“world as textÂ” taught me that performances contain much more than mere words. As Leander and Rowe (2006) stated, representational logic misses
216 Â“much of how a performance creates effects for performers and a udience alikeÂ” (p. 431). To my chagrin, I learned as Conquergood ( 1991) stated, that it is a mistake for a researcher to Â“privilege words over othe r channels of meaningÂ” (p. 189). McLuhan (1964) predicted my mistake of privileging words in his theory that each medium introduces a change of scale that shapes our relationships and be havior. The mistakes both the teacher and I made were the result of a medium that had extended our visual sense into the social world, amplified its spee d and power, and separated it from the other senses. Furthermore, although I considered th e historical and social context to be significant aspects of this case study, Conquer good stated that cultural performances are not only Â“investigated historically within their political contex ts, they are profoundly deliberative occasionsÂ” (p. 189). While the methodology I selected for this case study allowed me to collect, analyze, and reach fi ndings on a large amount of discourse, it did not allow me to collect, analyze, and reach findings concerning how the performances created effects for the actorsÂ’ and the audience. Despite the fact that th e methodology I employed was limited and was unable to reach understandings of the performances as embodied experience, it was sufficient for answering the research question, namely what is the relationship of the participantsÂ’ discourse practices to their pe rformance. The findings demons trated that the teacher was involved in the construction of the discourses. This was apparent in the first interview when she explained her accuracy-based appro ach with the words, Â“My expectations are very high for this performance. I want to se e something really, rea lly perfect.Â” Then she added, Â“I like perfecti on.Â” In the same interview, she expressed doubts about the actorsÂ’ abilities to achieve her sta ndards of perfection saying, Â“maybe I am expecting too much
217 from this group.Â” The teacherÂ’s involvement in the construction of the discourses was apparent in the actorsÂ’ performances. For exam ple, Patricia used the words Â“it has to be perfect,Â” and Mario expressed discouragement and frustration on day 19, when he asked for and did not receive validation and mu ttered, Â“CanÂ’t do nothinÂ’, man!Â” The relationship between the teacherÂ’s and actorsÂ’ discourse demonstrates BakhtinÂ’s (1986) notion that Â“thoughts are born and shaped in th e process of interac tion and struggle with othersÂ’ thought, and this cannot but be reflected in the form s that verbally express our thought as wellÂ” (p. 92). The teacher positioned the actors as having voted to participate and therefore as having voted to comply with her growing list of expectations as th e play progressed. One of these involved demonstrating a committed identity. On day 8, Mrs. R. forcefully slapped the cafeteria table while she told Lu is, Â“You have to care.Â” Luis seemed shocked by her performance and the new expectati on she introduced. He paused for several seconds and coolly responded, Â“Can we start now?Â” In the pause, pow er seemed to shift and in his response, Luis positioned himself as having more control and composure. Luis took power by using the pronoun we implying that he and the actors were waiting for Mrs. R. to stop her performance, which di srupted the rehearsal. The participantsÂ’ performances created effects for me, and I had a sense as the researcher and an audience member that the drama acted out on stage was meant for my benefit. I had a sense that this drama was a Â“play within a playÂ” as in Hamlet As Conquergood (1991) stated, Â“Social dramas must be acted out and ritual s performed in order to be meaningfulÂ” (p. 187). In addition he stated, Â“the ethnographer must be a co-performer in order to
218 understand those embodied meaningsÂ” (p. 187). I surmised that since the performances created effects for me, they were certainly creating effects for the other participants. Literacy performances, as Leander an d Rowe (2006) stated, provide rich opportunities for learning because of Â“their enactments of embodied affectÂ” (p. 433). Laura was among the principal participants i nvolved in these enactments. However, my methodology did not allow me to collect, anal yze, and reach findings concerning these enactments or their effects on both the act ors and the audience alike. The methodology only allowed me to study discourse, which is only one part of the complex Â“interplay of performance codesÂ” as Conquergood (1991) ca lled the six modes of meaning (p. 189). Despite this flaw, the methodology I selected allowed me to collect, analyze, and reach findings on a large amount of discourse. The fi ndings demonstrated that after she left the play, Laura constructed herself through a new critical discour se. This critical discourse created new meanings by critiquing all the disc ourses, in particular the social Discourse represented in the discourse practice of playing around because it was not fully committed to the play production. This critical discourse also portrayed Mrs. R. as overly authoritarian and hopeless because of her invo lvement in creating her own resistance and her powerlessness in overcoming it. LauraÂ’s critical discourse was put to use as an evaluative Discourse model to judge each participantÂ’s performance, even her own. The words Â“Mrs. R was too bossy, and well, I got mad at her because it was not only me doing all the stuff,Â” recognized playing around as a discourse of resistance c onstructed in relationship with the teacherÂ’s expectations and performance. In addition, Laura recognized her own playing around as a performance linked to feelings of frustr ation, anger and aggression because of the
219 instructional discourseÂ’s control and inequit y. LauraÂ’s new critical discourse recognized and critiqued all the discourses as responsible for causing the difficulties both she and the entire performance community experienced in the play production. Her new critical discourse created meanings that might help teachers change instructional discourses and design performance communities to prevent these types of conflict. Summary Exploring what happened when 7th grade Latino/a adolescents and their Latina teacher produced a play in an after-school pr ogram resulted in four major findings. First, the teacher was involved in th e construction of the discourse s. One of the discourses, playing around, was constructe d in relationship with the teacherÂ’s expectations and became an unmanageable binary. Second, after leaving the play, one of the actors constructed herself through a ne w critical discourse, which f unctioned to critique all of the discourses in the play. Third, one of the actors represented herself through a new literate discourse, which recogni zed that Discourses of immigr ation legislation speak to one another across history. Fi nally, although it was adequate for answering the research questions, the methodology I used in this case study did not allow me to collect, analyze, and reach findings concerning how the performa nces created effects for the actorsÂ’ and the audience. The principal goal of schools, Gee (1996) stated, should be to provide opportunities for students to juxtapose divers e Discourses so that they can understand, critique and reflect on them. Most schools do not offer such opportunities, and in this after-school performance commun ity, the teacher wasted many opportunities to help the actors juxtapose and critique Di scourses. The opportunity to critically analyze the novel
220 was missed or completely ignored both in the after-school play production and in the classroom. In fact, although most of the actors had r ead the novel earlier in the year in the high-beginning ESOL class, Mario and Luis ha d not read the novel because they were in the intermediate class, in which different novels were read. Thus, the novel was completely disconnected from the play, a nd the teacher did not plan for classroom activities that would have enhanced th e studentsÂ’ background knowledge. The teacher missed opportunities for critical analysis due to the absence of big ideas, or unifying themes, such as revolution, justice, or immigration. Although the teacher missed opportunities to include critical analysis, the actors took advantage of the available opportunities to be critical in their reflective responses and in their rehearsal performances. For exam ple, DianaÂ’s performance was critical when she looked disgusted while saying the line Â“never fear to start over.Â” Diana was the only actor who juxtaposed Discourses of immigration in her reflective response, perhaps because of a conn ection she made to Mrs. R.Â’s performance in front of the parents on the da y of the play. In her prologue, Mrs. R. was critical in her reference to the authorÂ’s note in the novel, sa ying that there was a lot of anger in the play and, in a ironic manner suggested that the au dience would understand the reasons for that anger. Mrs. R.Â’s performance seemed to ha ve an effect on Diana because Diana made a connection to the Deportation Act of 1929, whic h Muoz-Ryan explained in the authorÂ’s note at the end of the novel. Perhaps Diana connected Mrs. R.Â’s prologue to something she said in class earlier in the year when the class studied the novel. In any case, Diana wrote about the Deportation Act of 1929 in her reflective response. However, despite the
221 critical tone of Mrs. R.Â’s speech to the pare nts before the final performance, she did not include critical discussi on during the rehearsals. While a critical tone was part of the t eacherÂ’s performance in the play, during the rehearsals the teacher created her own resist ance, which was constructed in relationship with her expectations. She expected that the actors demonstrate compliance, which was Â“caringÂ” about the play. The reason for the teach erÂ’s approach was finally revealed in her performance in front of the parents on the da y of the play when she presented the award for caring Mario had received in the schoolÂ’s Community of Caring class. The teacher benefited from this presentation because in th e context of the parents seeing their children performing in a play in school, the teacher was almost completely assured that the parents would recognize her as a caring teacher. In f act, Mario wrote about hi s parentsÂ’ approval of the teacher in his reflective response, Â“The y liked the play and when I got the diploma for caring.Â” The findings demonstrated the idea that Di scourses are inheren tly unreflective and uncritical. The teacher valued the actorsÂ’ representing themselves through a caring identity but only in terms of superficial co mpliance with her appro ach. The instructional discourse illustrated the disadva ntages of coerced participati on, especially in after-school programs. Furthermore, the findings dem onstrated that reflective and critical consciousness of discourses is necessary in planning for culturally responsive afterschool performance communities. In the next three sections, I present two an alyses of the play and a theory in which I describe the three component s of culturally responsive performance learning. In the first section, I present an analysis of the play as a clash between the visual world of print and
222 the multi-sensory world of the spoken word. In the second section, I present an analysis of how the actors established themselves as mu ltimodal text designers. In the last section, I present a theory called the Design for Pe rformance Learning, which was based on the findings of the Discourse analysis. In this th eoretical blueprint, I describe the components that are necessary to incorporate reflective a nd critical consciousness of discourses into after-school performance communities. Limitations of the Visual World The clash between the teacherÂ’s accur acy-based approach (even her validationÂ— Â“exactly!Â”Â—was accuracy-based) and the ac torsÂ’ highly participational approach represented the clash between what McLuhan called the Â“eye worldÂ” and the Â“ear world.Â” The teacherÂ’s construction of the play as an information-dense hot medium demonstrated the notion that her consciousness had been shaped by the struct ure of the visual world of print. As Ong (1982) stated, t echnologies Â“are not mere exterior aids but also interior transformations of consciousnessÂ” (p. 82). While the teacherÂ’s consciousness had been shaped by the visual world of print that separates the sens es, the actorsÂ’ consciousness had been shaped by the spoken word that u tilizes all the senses at once. Under the teacherÂ’s control, the play was what McLuhan (1964) called a Â“highly developed situation,Â” that is, it was Â“l ow in opportunities of partic ipation, and rigorous in its demands of specialist fragmentationÂ” (p. 29). The multi-sensory world of the spoken word, McLuhan stated, finds hot media upsetting. Thus, the actorsÂ’ multi-sensory, highly participational world found the playÂ—a hot mediumÂ—unsettling and difficult. As McLuhan stated, cool cultures adapt through pl ay, which Â“cools off the hot situations of
223 actual life by miming themÂ” (p. 31). The actorsÂ’ cool multi-sensory world tried to make Â“senseÂ” of the print worldÂ’s neut rality, coldness and Â“non-sense.Â” While in the world-as-text approach to th e play, action and reaction were separate parts of a binary, in the world-as-perform ance approach, action and reaction occurred simultaneously. Shaped by hot media (print, movi es), the teacherÂ’s approach to the play had a high degree of information and a Â“cool,Â” or low degree of participation. The actors were responsible for combining a lot of decontextualized, fragmented information by memorizing and trying to follow models. In cont rast, shaped by a variet y of cool electric media (TV, video, computers), the actorsÂ’ appro ach to the play reflec ted a low degree of information and a Â“hot,Â” or high degree of participation. According to McLuhan, media extend our bodies into the social world and amplify their speed and power. The words Â“t he medium is the message,Â” summarized McLuhanÂ’s (1964) theory that each medium in troduces a change of s cale that shapes our relationships and behavior. The medium of the phonetic alphabet amplified the visual worldÂ’s speed and power creating the Â“separaten ess of the individual, continuity of space and of time, and uniformity of codesÂ” (McLuhan, 1964, p. 84). The history of Western literacy, McLuhan (1962) stated, is the story of how each of our media further removed us from Â“the magical world of the ear to the neutral visual worldÂ” (p. 18). McLuhan believed the nexus of the age of print (the Gutenberg galaxy) and the electric age caused confusion, which called fo r an analysis of how media shape human environments. McLuhan (1962) stated that th e source of this conf usionÂ—the introduction of new mediaÂ—meant Â“new ratios among all of our sensesÂ” as the new media extended and amplified the senses (p. 41). For example, in the Gutenberg er a, print extended and
224 amplified the visual sense with an incr ease in speed of communication. However, McLuhan stated, without the phonetic alphabe t, the Gutenberg era would have been impossible. Long before the printing press, ea rly forms of writing am plified the visual by storing oral meanings in pi ctographic forms. The phonetic al phabet separated the visual from the auditory, and sacrificed meaning to amplify the speed and power of the visual world. The technology of the phonetic alphabet, Mc Luhan stated, Â“reduced the use of all the senses at once, which is oral speech, to a merely visual codeÂ” (p. 45). The history of Western literacy documents an increasing separation of the senses, McLuhan stated, until the advent of electric media, which promise to restore us to the unified, multi-sensory, and participatory Â“magical wo rld of the earÂ” (p. 18). While McLuhan characterized the world of the spoken word as magical, Ong (1982) characterized it as prof oundly spiritual and holy statin g that Â“the interiorizing force of the oral word relates in a special wa y to the sacral, to the ultimate concerns of existenceÂ” (p. 74). Ong noted that the spoke n word is central to the liturgy of many religions, especially Christiani ty, in which Â“God is thought of always as Â‘speakingÂ’ to human beings, not as writing to themÂ” (p 75). As Ong stated, the sound of the spoken word originates inside our bodies and displa ys us to one another as conscious human beings, forming us into communities. Spoke n discourse is unifying and spiritually uplifting; it unites our senses into a harmoni ous whole, and unifies people by breaking down barriers between speaker and listener. Wh ereas written discourse separates us from one another in time and space, spoken discourse unifies us by eliminating the barriers between performer and audience. By virtue of the re-ascendancy of the magical,
225 participatory world of the spoken word, harmony and balance is restored to our senses and discourse practices. Summary Both the teacher and I were shaped by the phonetic alphabet that extended our visual sense into the social world. The errors we made were caused by the fact that the medium of print had shaped our relationships and actions. As McLuhan stated, the visual world prefers separation of th e senses, favoring accuracy a nd analysis in repose, while the auditory world utilizes all the senses at once. Whereas the teacherÂ’s approach was indeed oppressive, the methodology I selected for this study was guilty of the same mistake in judgment and represented, as Conquergood (1991) stated, the Â“flattening approach of text-positivismÂ” (p. 189). As an alternative to text-positivism, the performance paradigm allows for new pe dagogical and methodological approaches. Multimodal Text Designers The participants combined various elemen ts of linguistic, visual, gestural, audio, and spatial modes of meaning to construct multimodal meanings. Multimodal meanings, as the New London Group (1996) stated, relate the five modes of meaning in dynamic ways. The actors established themselves as multimodal text designers by drawing from elements of the modes of meaning to create the pla y, a system of multimodal design. In order to describe the characteristics of the play as a system of multimodal design, I adapted CowanÂ’s (2005) three features, which were used to describe Latino/a visual discourse, and created three characteristics: the contextual, the intertextual, and the social characteristics. In the following section, I present the conclusions using these three characteristics.
226 The contextual characteristic describes the literacy events that aroused the adolescentsÂ’ awareness of both the sociohist orical context and the contemporary context of the play. The findings demonstrated that the adolescentsÂ’ awareness of the sociohistorical context was aroused through the negotiation of meaning (Wenger, 1998). The negotiation of meaning describes the proce ss of experience and engagement as being essentially meaningful, historical, dynami c, and contextual. By negotiating meaning using the video as a tool, the performan ce community developed a set of rules or conventions. This set of rules, revealed in the actorsÂ’ discourses, constituted knowledge in the play production, that is, the Discourse of the play. The contextual characteristic also describe s the literacy events that aroused the adolescentsÂ’ awareness of the contemporary soci al context. The findings revealed that the adolescentsÂ’ awareness of the contemporary social context was aroused on day 4 when nationwide marches protesting a controversial immigration reform bill being debated in the Senate were related to the three hundred Latino/a absences from school. Only 5 actors attended the rehearsal that day. Although only one recognized the event in words on that day, one of the actors used her reflective response writing to r ecognize that through history, Discourses in the play spoke to one another. In this recognition, the actor validated the playÂ’s personalized approach to learning as culturall y responsive pedagogy. This recognition alluded to Mr s. R.Â’s prologue on the day of the performance, a reference to the authorÂ’s note in the novel Esperanza Rising The intertextual characteristic describes the modes of meaning multimodal designers draw from to create their texts. The actors drew from the elements of the modes of meaning to project an emotion or to cr eate a mood, that is, to design meaning. For
227 instance, the actors drew from elements of audio modes of meaning to design meaning in the flashback and signal that the play was tran sporting the audience to an earlier period in history. In the prologue, the te acher drew from elements of audio, visual and gestural modes of meaning to convey th e image of anger. The actors repeated the image of anger three times by drawing from the same elements of the modes of m eaning to create the playÂ’s conflict and theme. By linking multiple images and combining modes of meaning, the participants established themselves as multimodal text designers. The intertextual characterist ic also describes events that initiated actors into the Mexican performance Discourse. On the first day, the danza indgena or ritual indigenous dance initiated the actors, and me, into th is Discourse. The complex gestures and movements evoked a description of a sim ilar dance in RodriguezÂ’s autobiography, Always Running, La vida loca: Gang days in L.A. (Rodriguez, 1993). Just as the rising sceneÂ’s ritual dance initiated me, it also initiated the actors into the Mexican performance Discourse. Mario and Luis demonstrated th eir recognition of the Mexican performance Discourse on day 14 when they donned a black jacket and swaggere d around, sliding across the floor in the style of the pachuco character. In the boysÂ’ actions, I recognized the sociohistorical context other Latino student s had described and guessed that the black jacket must have reminded the two boys of the pachuco character. These events demonstrated that sociohistorical Discourses were recognized and enacted through articles of clothing and elements of gestural modes of meaning. The level one social characteristic desc ribes a visual discourse literacy event through which the Latina adolescents constr ucted identities. The findings described a literacy event in which the Latina adolescents planned and created thei r poster designs in
228 order to affiliate with the group. The level on e characteristic revealed that one student was a literacy leader who initiated literacy practices, which other students imitated and modified to construct their identities. The level two social characteristic de scribes the multimodal literacy events through which the teacher and actors constr ucted cultural meanings and knowledge. The findings revealed that the so ciocultural context was struct ured to support learning through a process of repeated modeling. In this proc ess, increased control and leadership were ceded to the actors, and the teacher played the role of the audience. As one actor progressed from an apprentice to a full part icipant, his seriousness and engagement became increasingly apparent. In keeping with her focus on accuracy, modeling was the primary strategy Mrs. R. used to scaffold the actorsÂ’ knowledge of how to project emotion by combining two or more elements of the modes of meaning. However, modeling often resulted in no improvement in the actorsÂ’ projection of meaning. When Mrs. R. finally realized modeling was not enough, she used meaning as a secondary strategy to explain what the actorÂ’s character would thi nk. Although the teacher used it as a secondary strategy, meaning was more effective than modeling a nd encouraged the actor to think like her character and project the appropr iate emotion. In interaction w ith the students, the teacher adjusted her technique to focu s more on comprehension of the charactersÂ’ affect to ensure the actorsÂ’ combining the elements of multim odal design to project the correct meaning. Parody was a response to the teacherÂ’s au thority. One of many ways Mrs. R. exercised authority in her la nguage was through the term cutoff day which she used to describe her power to remove an actor from the play. Certain students (e.g. Diana, Mario,
229 Laura) used parody and others (e.g. Lena) did not. Sometime s parody was aggressive and designed to cause a reaction. Parody and the practice of playing ar ound were similar to relajo the vital element of the Mexican popular perfor mance Discourse. BroylesGonzalez (1994) defined relajo as Â“disruptive group cheekin ess,Â” which uses parody and other techniques to express opposition to authority. The findings revealed that Mrs. R.Â’s strategy of worki ng in the actorsÂ’ zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) and helping them imagine what their characters would think enabled the actors to combine the elements of linguistic and gestural modes of meaning to project emotion. The findings al so revealed that Mr s. R. was guided by a specific set of dispositions, wh ich she tried to inculcate in the actors during the play production. This set of disposi tions included linguistic and social capital, including the adoption of gender-speci fic ways of acting. Summary In this after-school performance communit y, the actors established themselves as multimodal text designers by drawing from elem ents of the modes of meaning to create the play, a system of multimodal design. By crea ting three characteristics, I was able to describe in detail a context in which Latino/ a adolescentsÂ’ multiliteracies were validated. In describing the details of this context, I learned how much ther e was to say, and how much there is still to know about how Latino/ a adolescents assume literate identities and join larger communities both inside and outside of school. I used the findings to develop a Design for Performance Learning, which de scribes how an after-school performance community might look if the goal were to provide more opportunities for students to juxtapose and cri tique Discourses.
230 A Design for Perfor mance Learning In this naturalistic case study of an after-school performance community, the findings revealed that playi ng around was constructed in re lationship with the teacherÂ’s expectations and became an intractable bina ry. The actors constructed themselves through literate discourses and validated their perfor mance by putting an evaluative Discourse model to use in their reflective responses. With this evaluative Discour se model, they rated their performance based on three key elemen ts: responsibility, history, and teamwork. These three elements serve as a blueprint for a Design for Performance Learning that is culturally responsive and s upports academic learning. Responsibility As the first element in the Design fo r Performance Learning, responsibility deserves teachersÂ’ special attention. Teachers are entrusted with the responsibility of constructing culturally responsiv e instructional disc ourses in their work with Latino/a adolescents. As the findings in this natura listic case study demons trated, instructional discourses must be caring, reflective, and cr itical; however, caring is the most significant because it is profoundly intertwined with the other three. First, teachers must be caring in order to recognize how instru ctional discourses are fundame ntally involved in creating resistance and reproducing power. With cari ng, teachers might be able to construct instructional discourses that are reflectiv e and critical. Second, teachers must be reflective in order to reali ze that performances create effects for actors and audiences alike. As the findings demons trated, Discourses are inherent ly unreflective and uncritical. Critical reflection can be used during play productions to allo w all voices to be heard as well as to evaluate the final production in order to improve future projects.
231 Critical literacy allows multiple voices to be heard and is an inherent part of a reflective and caring instructiona l discourse. Critical literacy asks questions, such as why Esperanza and other Mexicans were forced to move, or why the novel is a tale of riches to rags, or why there are multiple meanings of the phrase Â“never be afraid to start over.Â” This proverb has important meanings, not only in the context of immigration, but also in the context of education at the nexus of the el ectric world and the world of print. All of us, including teachers have been shaped by the visual world of print. However, teachers have been shaped more than most, and may be subconsciously afraid of the reascendancy of the auditory world and the retr eat of the hegemonic power of the world of print. Teachers may be intimidated by the multi-sensory auditory world, which has increasingly eclipsed the long-dominant visual world. Teachers have been shaped by the visual world, which separates and isolates, and blinds them to the participatory, multisensory world and its discourse practices. Giving students control of their own l earning would demonstrate that teachers could be critical of the flattening approach of the visual world. Control of learning, as Wenger (1998) stated, is engagement Â“in the production of sharable artifactsÂ” (p. 184). To produce sharable artifacts means that stude nts create and perform in plays about their own lives, which they might juxtapose with th e novels they have read. Caring, reflective, and critical teachers will construct instruc tional discourses that support culturally responsive after-school environments in whic h Latino/a adolescents can create sharable artifacts through creative pl aywriting and performing us ing digital video technology.
232 History As the second element in the Design for Performance Learning, history is worthy of its position. History is significant because, as the findings dem onstrated, the video mediated the history of the performance communityÂ’s meanings. This means that it transported meanings and values from a nother context and framed the participantsÂ’ interactions, converting their so cial practices into meanings. Conceptualizing a history of the communityÂ’s meanings is imagination, th e second mode of belonging in communities of practice theory. Imagination is global a nd means helping Latino/a adolescents identify who they are in the socio-hi storical context, which as Wenger (1998) stated, cannot be worked out in isolation. In order to help Latino/a a dolescents identify who they are in the socio-historical context, teachers must be both knowledgeab le and bold. Teachers must become more knowledgeable about Latino/a adolescentsÂ’ cult ures and multiliteracies. For example, if the teacher had been more knowledgeable a bout the rich Mexican oral performance tradition when the actors recognized these discourses on day 14 by mimicking the pachuco character, the teacher might have been ab le to help them make connections so they could compare discourses and articulate how certain discourse practices create certain experiences. By doing so, the teach er would have validated the Latinos/as multiliteracies, not erased them. In addition, teachers must be bold in the face of the powerful political implications of validating the multi-sensory auditory world over the visual world of print. However, knowledge supports boldness by offeri ng a clear rationale. To produce sharable digital artifacts means that students create and perform in plays about their own lives,
233 which might be juxtaposed with a text they ha ve read earlier or in conjunction with the performance project. Caring, reflective, a nd critical teachers cons truct instructional discourses that support culturally responsive af ter-school environments in which Latino/a adolescents create sharable digital artifact s through creative play writing and performing using digital video technology. Teamwork As the third element in the Design for Performance Learning, teamwork merits particular attention. Teamwo rk was significant because it was part of an evaluative Discourse model the actors put to use to ra te their performance and assess the play production after it ended. In this evaluativ e Discourse model, the actors recognized collaboration as responsible for their successful performance. Some credited Mrs. R. for their success and recognized her decisions as supportive of their goals. Some also validated the help they gave their fellow actor s. Almost all of the actors used the pronoun we to validate the collective work of the en tire performance community. As the findings demonstrated, helping was consid ered a function of teamwork. Teamwork resembles alignment in communities of practice theory. As Wenger (1998) stated, alignment is Â“finding ways of being that can encompass multiple, conflicting perspectives in the course of addressing signifi cant issues,Â” and resu lts in coordination of action (p. 175). Teamwork employs the ability to manage conflicting perspectives during a performance project. Teamwork manages conf licting perspectives by providing a space for actors to be critical throughout the process, not only by writing reflective responses at the end of the project. Play productions might be fa cilitated if they util ize the capability to coordinate different perspectives, such as thos e of Laura or Lena who did not operate with
234 the Discourse model of playing around, a nd others. By using conferences, planning sessions, as well as writing, performance co mmunities might discover the key to the process of teamwork. By being reflective a nd critical throughout the process, members would display ownership that resu lts in coordination of action. Teamwork in a play production would also use the capability to coordinate the diverse skills and perspectives of multiple teachers in the play production. The findings demonstrated the difficulty of directing a pe rformance community w ithout the benefit of teamwork, because as Wenger (1998) stated, alignment cannot be accomplished in isolation. Summary Responsibility, history, and teamwork serv e as a three-part pedagogical blueprint for a Design for Performance Learning. The three elements in this design were drawn from the Discourse Analysis, and explain the participantsÂ’ perceptions and describe their engagement with literacy in the play production. The Design for Performance Learning describes a culturally responsive context in which Latino/a adolescen tsÂ’ multiliteracies are validated and supported rather than er ased. Finally, the Design for Performance Learning promises that there is a lot more to learn about how Latino/a adolescents assume literate identities and join the larg er communities both inside and outside of school. Implications This naturalistic case study of an after-school performance community revealed several important findings, which have si gnificant implications for implementing and researching after-school perfor mance learning projects. I divi ded these implications into
235 three parts: implications for administrators, im plications for teachers, and implications for researchers. Implications for Administrators To make after-school perf ormance activities culturally responsive for Latino/a adolescents, administrators are centrally pos itioned as leaders to support the Design for Performance Learning. This three-part bluepr int of responsibility, history, and teamwork explains how 7th grade Latino/a adolescents described their engagement with literacy in this after-school perfor mance community. Educational leaders might use this blueprint as a guide for planning or evalua ting educatorsÂ’ proposals for after-school literacy programs for Latino/a adolescents. The critical part of this blueprint is that it calls on educationa l leadersÂ’ knowledge and acceptance of the literacy-as-social-pra ctices perspective. According to this perspective, a communityÂ’s lite racy practices are associated with the participantsÂ’ beliefs about, and the meaning they draw from th eir environment (Heath, 1983; Gee, 1996). As Gee (1996) stated, Â“what matters is not literacy as some dec ontextualized ability to write or read, but the social practices into which people are apprenticed as part of a social groupÂ” (p. 57). As the findings in this case study demonstrated, the Discourse of the play emerged out of consensus about what constituted knowledge in the play. Being responsible involved the actorsÂ’ knowledge of and adherence to the communityÂ’s rules, or conventions. The findings demonstrated th at this after-school context was uniquely positioned to support the Latino/a a dolescentsÂ’ literacy practices. Teamwork recruits administratorsÂ’ capacity to provide leadership that supports diverse communitiesÂ’ literacy practices with in their schools. The findings suggest two
236 ways administrators can provide this kind of leadership. One way to provide leadership is by promoting after-school performance projects. Teamwork positions administrators as leaders whose responsibility is to provide knowledge and support, which the Design for Performance Learning provides. Another important way to support after-school performance projects is to increase opport unities for audiences. The findings confirmed the significant role of audience in Lati no/a adolescentsÂ’ engagement with literacy practices. The findings suggest that increasi ng the variety of audi ences in after-school performance projects can support academ ic learning. As educational leaders, administrators can demonstrate support for after-school performance projects by allowing communities to perform in in-school venues. Administrators can also demonstrate support for after-school performance projects by attending performances and encouraging other administrators and staff to do so. This kind of supportive leadersh ip validates rather than erases Latino/a adol escentsÂ’ multiliteracies. Implications for Teachers In this naturalistic case st udy of an after-school performance community, the main issue in the case was how to describe and understand the participan tsÂ’ engagement with literacy practices and to explain their percep tions in order to facilitate culturally responsive pedagogy to support academic lear ning. For their part, teachers and other practitioners may recogni ze particular features of this ca se that resonate with their own experiences. The findings confirmed the notion that in structional discourses must be caring, reflective, critical, knowledgeable, bold, and collaborative in order for after-school performance communities to be successful and culturally responsive. The findings
237 suggest four ways to promote engagement, that is, to give students control of their own learning. First, to make the performance co mmunity less conflict-driven, I recommend a voluntary approach for after-school performan ce activities. Second, in keeping with the voluntary approach, Latino/a adolescents shoul d be allowed to write their own plays about topics in which they are interested. Third, digital video technology is essential to record rehearsals and a laptop to view the results. By view ing the rehearsals, actors can be in control of their own learning by ne gotiating standards thr ough discussion, writing, and planning progress of the performance. Edited performances, recorded on digital videodisks can serve as guides for later rehe arsals and future performance communities. Finally, performance communities can be more equitable if they employ reflective journals throughout the process, not only as responses at the end of the production. In his study, Cowan (2003) contemplat ed how teachers might connect Latino visual discourse with mainstream school-bas ed literacy practices if Latino visual discourse were valued as a system of literac y. During the course of this study, I began to wonder how teachers might connect performa nce literacy practices with school-based literacy practices if the Latino/a adol escentsÂ’ multiliteracies were valued. Performance projects are culturally responsive and can support academic learning because they construct contexts that ar e powerful for helping Latino/a adolescents identify who they are in the socio-historical context. Latino/a adolescents can juxtapose Discourses and acquire new lite rate Discourses. In the upheaval of the contemporary social context with nationwide protests over controversial immigra tion legislation being debated, one actor was conscious that Discour ses of immigration speak to one another across history. She wrote that juxtaposing Discourses was the main reason for validating
238 her experience and the playÂ’s personalized approach to learning. As the findings demonstrated, culturally res ponsive after-school performan ce projects allow Latino/a adolescents to broaden their Discourse maps and validate their multiliteracies. Implications for Researchers The findings confirmed the significant role of audience in the Latino/a adolescentsÂ’ engagement with literacy pr actices, and suggest a variety of audiences in performance projects might support Latino/a adolescentsÂ’ acquisition of new literate Discourses. One way to incorporate audiences might be to incl ude the actors in the performance community themselves. This might be accomplished in two ways: first, by including focus groups in the design and second, by incorporating written journals throughout the research process. Researchers might also examine the i ssue of gender and power in Latino/a adolescentsÂ’ after-school performance commun ities. In the last two decades, Cammarota (2004) stated, a gender shift has accounted fo r LatinasÂ’ steady rise in high school and college graduation rates, while LatinosÂ’ rate s have declined. Latinas often use academic success to negotiate their identity and resist social constructions that position them as inferior to males. In this study, for example, LauraÂ’s actions in holding the paper over her face might be interpreted as resisting MarioÂ’s construction of her as his girlfriend. As Cammarota stated, Â“young Latinas assess the ro le of education in their resistancesÂ” to determine whether education is Â“helpful or hopelessÂ” (p. 53). Laura seemed to assess the teacher as hopeless against the unmanageable binary after the only response she made to MarioÂ’s perceived disrespect was a matter-offact Â“YouÂ’re being si lly. IÂ’m sick of it.Â”
239 Suggestions for Further Research This case study suggests several ideas for further research on Latino/a adolescentsÂ’ after-school performance projects First, further research might explore how an after-school performance community of La tino/a adolescents crea tes and uses digital recordings to enhance their performance. Furt her research might construct questions that address Latino/a adolescentsÂ’ identity in pr actice, which is not di scursive, but Â“a lived experience of participation in specific communitiesÂ” (Wenger, 1998, p. 151). Further research might consider ConquergoodÂ’s (1991) de finition of discourse as not only verbal, but also articulated and chal lenged in actions. By constructing questions and adopting a methodology conducive to studying actions and words, further research would not be blinded by the visual world and fail to se nse Â“how a performance creates effects for performers and audience alikeÂ” (Leander and Rowe, 2006, p. 431). Second, further research might employ e ither a quantitative or a mixed method design to study the effects of sharing Latino/ a after-school-generated performances in an in-school context on Latino/a adolescentsÂ’ engagement with academic learning and performance on tests of reading comprehensi on. Third, a longitudinal study of a Latino/a adolescent performance community might expl ore how the communityÂ’s meanings change over a period of several years. Finally, further case study rese arch might explore one or two individual Latino/a adolescentsÂ’ engagement with literacy in both an after-school performance community and an in-school contex t. These ideas are just a few examples of research that might be undert aken to move knowledge forwar d in this area. This study suggests there is much more to learn about La tino/a adolescentsÂ’ engagement with literacy, especially in afte r-school performance communities.
240 Educational Significance The findings in this naturalistic cas e study of an after-s chool performance community revealed that the 7th grade Latino/a adolescents constructed themselves through literate discourses, and validated their performance. Moreover, one actor constructed herself through a new critical discourse, whic h functioned to create new meanings and new literacies. In addition, anot her actor juxtaposed diverse Discourses and recognized that Discourses spoke to one anothe r across history. The Discourse analysis of the participantsÂ’ reflective responses and oral interviews revealed that the participants operated with seven Discourse models. Several of these Discourse models were put to use by the actors as evaluative Discourse models to rate their performance. These models were used to develop a Design for Perform ance Learning. This Design for Performance Learning contains three elemen ts: responsibility, histor y, and teamwork. These three elements serve as a pedagogical blueprint fo r performance learning that is culturally responsive and supports academic learning. Implementing a Design for Performance Learning for Latino/a ELLs would involve incorporating technology through student-created digita l videos of performances. These digital videos would serve as a memory system, a guide on which oral performance relies, and allow adolescent ELLs to design meanings by relating linguistic, visual, gestural, audio, spatial, and multim odal modes of meaningÂ—the six modes of meaningÂ—in dynamic ways. Through performan ce learning, the actors would draw on these six modes of meaning to create a co mplex system of multimodal design. Then, like the actors in Esperanza Renace they would establish themselves as multimodal text designers.
241 The findings demonstrated the significant meaning Discourses impart to language and literacy in two ways: in making meaning, and in being critical. First, by transporting meanings and values embodied in the video a nd converting local practices into meanings important in other contexts, the play produc tion reflected GeeÂ’s ( 1996) notion that Â“in Discourses, mind mixes with hi story and society; language mi xes with bodies, things, and toolsÂ…as humans go about making and bei ng made by meaningÂ” (p. 190). Secondly, the findings demonstrated that Disc ourses are insulated from criti que, and unable to critique themselves. In order to critique any Discourse an individual must have acquired at least two Discourses, and must have learned, not acquired, Â“meta-level knowledge about both DiscoursesÂ” (Gee, 1996, p. 145). To conclude I suggest that culturally relevant pedagogyÂ’s goal include consciousness of Di scourses to help teachers and students achieve self-knowledge and impr ove social relationships. Finally, I learned why I struggl ed as a teacher, in spite of many good intentions, to make my instruction cultural ly responsive for my culturally and linguistically diverse adolescents. When we, as teachers, attempt to make our classrooms culturally responsive, we must always be conscious of Discourse s and realize, as Gee (1996) stated, that language and literacy, at the ve ry least, are meaningless without them. As one of the consequences of becoming familiar with this case study, readers might reach new understandings about Discourses and their importance in valida ting culturally and linguistically diverse studentsÂ’ multiliteracies.
242 References Albers, P. & Murphy, S. (2000). Telling Pieces: Art as literacy in middle school classes. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Albright, J., Purohit, K., & Walsh, C. (2002). Louise Rosenblatt seeks QtAznBoi@aol.com for LTR: Using chat rooms in interdisciplinary middle school classrooms. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45 692-705. Alvermann, D.E., Hinchman, K.A., Moore, D. W., Phelps, S.F., & Waff, D.R. (Eds.). (1998). Reconceptualizing the lite racies in adolescentsÂ’ lives Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Au, K.H. (1980). Participation structures in a reading lesson with Hawaiian children: Analysis of a culturally appropr iate instructional event. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 11 91-115. Au, K. H. (1993). Literacy instruction in multicultural settings Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Au, K.H. & Blake, K.M. (2003). Cultural id entity and learning to teach in a diverse community: Findings from a collective case study. Journal of Teacher Education, 54, 222-227. Au, K. H. & Jordan, C. (1981). Teaching reading to Hawaiian children: finding a culturally appropriate soluti on. In H.T. Trueba, G.P. Guthrie, & K.H. Au. (Eds.).
243 Culture and the bilingual classroom: Studies in classroom ethnography (pp. 139152). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Au, K. H. & Mason, J.M. (1981). Social organi zational factors in learning to read: The balance of rights hypothesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 17 115-152. August, D. & Hakuta, K. (Eds.) (1997). Improving school for language minority children: A research agenda. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Bailey, F. & Pransky, K. (2005). Are Â“Other Pe opleÂ’s ChildrenÂ” constructivist learners too? Theory into Practice, 44 19-27. Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin. (M. Holquist, Ed., C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M.M. (1984). Rabelais and his world (H. Iswolsky, Trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V. McGee, Trans.). Austin, TX: The University of Texas Press. Barsalou, L.W. (1999). Percep tual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22 577-660. Barton, D. & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community. London: Routledge. Bell, G. M. (2004). Catching the light: A journey of the heart and mind, an adolescentÂ’s acquisiti on of a second language. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65 (02), 383. (UMI No. 3123601)
244 Black, R. W. (2005). Access and affiliation: The literacy and composition practices of English-language learners in an online fanfiction community. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49 118-128. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brandt, D. & Clinton, K. (2002). Limits of th e local: Expanding pers pectives on literacy as a social practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 34, 337-356. Broyles-Gonzalez, Y. (1994). El Teatro Campesino: Theater in the Chicano movement. Austin: University of Texas Press. Calkins, L. (1986). The art of teaching writing London and Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cammarota, J. (2004). The gendered and racial ized pathways of Latina and Latino youth: Different struggles, different resi stances in the urban context. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 35 53-74. Cazden, C.B. (2002). A descriptive study of six high school Puente classrooms. Educational Policy, 16 496-521. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cochran-Smith, M. (1995). Color blindness and basket making are not the answers: Confronting the dilemmas of race, cultu re, and language diversity in teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 32 493-522.
245 Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). The multiple meani ngs of multicultural teacher education: A conceptual framework. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30 7-26. Conquergood, D. (1991). Rethinking ethnography: Towards a critical cultural politics. Communication Monographs, 58, 179-194 Cope, B. & Kalantsis, M. (2000). Introduction: Multiliteracies: The be ginning of an idea. In B. Cope & M. Kalantsis (Eds.). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 3-8). London: Routledge. Covello, L. (1968). The social background of th e Italo-American school child: A study of the South Italian family mores and their e ffect on the school s ituation in Italy and America. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill. Cowan, P. M. (2003). Lowrider art: Latino visual literacy and border knowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer sity of California, Berkeley. Cowan, P. M. (2005). Putting it out there: Re vealing Latino discourse in the Hispanic Academic Summer Program for middle schoo l students. In B. V. Street (Ed.). Literacies across educational contex ts: Mediating learning and teaching (pp. 145-169). Philadelphia: Caslon Publishing. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary la nguage development in promoting education success for language minority students. In Schooling and language minority student: A theoretical framework (pp. 3-49). Los Angeles: California State University Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center.
246 Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 18-36. De Castell, S., & Luke, A. (1983/1988). Defini ng Â“literacyÂ” in North American schools. In E.R. Kintgen, B.M. Kroll, & M. Rose (Eds.). Perspectives on literacy (pp. 159174). Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press. Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1990). Literacy for empowerment: The role of parents in childrenÂ’s education New York: The Falmer Press. Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other peopleÂ’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58 280-298. Dietrich, D. & Ralph, K.S. (1995). Crossing borders: Mult icultural literature in the classroom. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 15, 1-8. Donato, R. (1997). The other struggle for equal school s: Mexican Americans during the civil rights era Albany, NY: State University of New York. Dyson, A.H. (1997). Children out of bounds: The power of case studies in expanding visions of literacy development. In J. Flood, S.B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.). Handbook of research on teaching litera cy through the communicative and visual arts (pp. 167-180). New York: Simon & Schuster MacMillan. Edelsky, C. (1982). Writing in a bilingual program: The relation of L1 and L2 texts. TESOL Quarterly, 16 211-228. Erikson, E.H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis New York: Norton. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
247 Farr, M. & Barajas, E.D. (2005). Latinos a nd diversity in a global city: Language and identity at home, school, churc h, and work. In M. Farr (Ed.). Latino language and literacy in ethnolinguistic Chicago (pp. 3-32). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. Faulkner, V. (2005). Adolescen t literacies with the middl e years of schooling-A case study of a year 8 homeroom. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49, 108117. Ferdman, B. (1990). Literacy and cultural identity. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 181-204. Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J.S. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ford, D.Y., & Grantham, T.C. (2003). Provi ding access for culturally diverse gifted students: From deficit to dynamic thinking. Theory Into Practice, 42 217-225. Foucault, M. (1977). Power/knowledge: Selected in terviews and other writings (19721977) (C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham, & K. Soper, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1984). Truth and power. In P. Rabinow (Ed.). The Foucault Reader (pp. 51-75). New York: Pantheon Books. Freire, P. (1970/2003). Pedagogy of the oppressed New York: Continuum. Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1995). A di alogue: Culture, language, and race. Harvard Educational Review, 65 379-401. Fries, C. (1945). Teaching and learning English as a second language Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
248 Garca, S.B., & Guerra, P.L. (2004). Decons tructing deficit thinking: Working with educators to create more equitable learning environments. Education and Urban Society, 36, 150-168. Garmon, M.A. (2004). Changing preservice teac hersÂ’ attitudes/beliefs about diversity: What are the critical factors? Journal of Teacher Education, 55 201-213. Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53 106-116. Gee, J. P. (1989a). What do English teach ers teach? (or Why isnÂ’t the Pope a bachelor?). Journal of Education, 171 135-146. Gee, J. P. (1989b). Literacy, discou rse, and linguistics: Introduction. Journal of Education, 171 5-17. Gee, J.P. (1989c). Â“Literariness,Â” formalis m, and sense making: The line and stanza structure of human thought. Journal of Education, 171 61-74. Gee, J. P. (1989d). Orality and literacy: From The Savage Mind to Ways With Words. Journal of Education, 171 39-60. Gee, J. P. (1989e). The Legacies of Liter acy: From Plato to Freire through Harvey Graff. Journal of Education, 171 147-176. Gee, J. P. (1990/1996). Social linguistics and literaci es: Ideology in discourses. London: Taylor & Francis. Gee, J. P. (1999). The future of the soci al turn: Social minds and the new capitalism. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32 61-68. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teac h us about learning and literacy New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
249 Gee, J. P. (2004). New times and new literaci es: Themes for a changing world. In A. F. Ball & S. W. Freedman (Eds.). Bakhtinian perspectives on language, literacy, and Learning (pp. 279-306). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge. Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine P ublishing Company. Godina, H. (2004). Contradictory literacy pr actices of Mexican-b ackground students: An ethnography from the rural Midwest. Bilingual Research Journal, 28 153-180. Goldman, S., Reyes, M., & Varnhagen, C. ( 1984). Understanding fables in first and second languages. NABE Journal, 8, 35-66. Goldstein, T. (2002). No pain, no gain : Student playwriting as critical ethnographic language research. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59 54-76. Goodman, Y.M. & Goodman, K.S. (1994). To err is human: Learning about language processes by analyzing miscues. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.). Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading 4th edition (pp. 104-123). Newark, DE: Internationa l Reading Association. Goody, J., & Watt, I. (1968/1988). The consequen ces of literacy. In E.R. Kintgen, B.M. Kroll, & M. Rose (Eds.). Perspectives on literacy (pp. 3-27). Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press. Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R.B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. New York: Longman.
250 Grady, K. (2002). Lowrider art and Latino students in the rura l Midwest. In Wortham, S., Murillo, E.G., Jr., & Hamann, E.T. (Eds.). Education in the new Latino diaspora: Policy and the politics of Identity (pp. 169-192). Westport, Connecticut: Ablex Publishing. Graff, H. (1981). Literacy in history: An interdis ciplinary research bibliography. New York: Garland. Graff, H. J. (1982/1988). The legacies of lite racy. In E.R. Kintgen, B.M. Kroll, & M. Rose (Eds.). Perspectives on literacy (pp. 82-94). Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press. Graves, D. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work London and Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Gutirrez, K. D. (2001). WhatÂ’s new in the English language arts: challenging policies and practices, y que? Language Arts, 78 564-569. Gutirrez, K., Baquedano-Lpez, & Turner, M. G. (1997). Putting language back into language arts: When the radical middle meets the third space. Language Arts, 74 368-378. Gutirrez, K.D., & Stone, L.D. (2000). Synchr onic and diachronic dimensions of social practice: An emerging methodology for cultur al-historical persp ectives on literacy learning. In C.D. Lee and P. Smagorinsky (Eds.). Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing mean ing through collaborative inquiry (pp. 150164). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Guzzetti, B.J. & Gamboa, M. (2004). Zines for social justice: Adol escent girls writing on their own. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 408-436.
251 Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: Th e social interpretation of Language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold Publishers. Hamann, E.T., Wortham, S., & Murillo, E.G., Jr. (2002). Education and policy in the new Latino diaspora. In Wortham, S., Muri llo, E.G., Jr., & Hamann, E.T. (Eds.). Education in the new Latino diaspora: Policy and the politics of Identity (pp. 116). Westport, Connecticut: Ablex Publishing. Hansen-Thomas, H. H. (2005). Learning to us e math discourse in a standards-based, reform-oriented middle school classroom: How Latina/o ELLs become socialized into the math community of practice. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66 (07), 2469. (UMI No. 3183948) Harklau, L. (2000). From the Â“good kidsÂ” to the Â“worstÂ”: Represen tations of English language learners across educational settings. TESOL Quarterly, 34 35-67. Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Helmar-Selasoo, E., Bronner, S.J., & Bonissone P.R. (2002). An effective teacher in a newcomersÂ’ school. In J.A. Langer (Ed.). Effective literacy instruction: Building successful reading and writing programs (pp. 99-135). Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English. Hochtritt, L. J. (2004). Creating mean ing and constructing identity through collaborative art practices among urban adolescents. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65 (06), 2062. (UMI No. 3135346) Hodgkinson, H. (2002). Demographics and teacher education: An overview. Journal of Teacher Education, 53 102-105.
252 Hornberger, N.H. & Skilton-Sylvester, E. ( 2000). Revisiting the continua of biliteracy: International and cri tical perspectives. Language and Education, 14 96122. Hubbard, R.S. & Shorey, V. (2003). Worlds beneath the words: Writing workshops with second language learners. Language Arts, 81 52-61. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguis tics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Jacob, E. (1992). Culture, Context, and Cogn ition. In M.D. LeCompte, W.L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.). The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Jimnez, R. T. (1997). The strategic reading abilities and potential of five low-literacy Latina/o readers in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 224-243. Jimnez, R. T. (2000). Literacy and the id entity development of Latina/o students. American Educational Research Journal, 37 971-1000. Jimnez, R. T. (2001). Â“ItÂ’s a difference that changes usÂ”: An alte rnative view of the language and literacy learning needs of Latina/o students. The Reading Teacher, 54 736742. Johnson, L. (2002). Â“My eyes have been openedÂ” : White teachers and racial awareness. Journal of Teacher Education, 53 153-167. Johnson, M. (2004). A philosophy of second language acquisition New Haven: Yale University Press. Kanno, Y. (2003). Negotiating bilingual and bicultural identities: Japan ese returnees betwixt two worlds Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
253 Kaestle, C. F. (1985/1988). The history of litera cy and the history of readers. In E.R. Kintgen, B.M. Kroll, & M. Rose (Eds.). Perspectives on literacy (pp. 95-126). Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press. King, J. R. & OÂ’Brien, D.G. (2002). Adoles centsÂ’ multiliteracies and their teachersÂ’ needs to know: Toward a digital d tente. In D. E. Alvermann (Ed.). Adolescents and literacies in a digital world (pp. 40-50). New York: Peter Lang. Kist, W. (2005). New literacies in action: Teachi ng and learning in multiple media. New York: Teachers College Press. Kramsch, C. (2000). Social discursi ve constructions of self in L2 learning. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.) Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 133-153). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications London: Longman. Kress, G.R. (2003). Literacy in the new media age London: Routledge. Kress, G.R., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The gramma r of visual design. London: Routledge. Kress, G.R., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold. Ladson-Billings, G. (1992). Reading betw een the lines and beyond the pages: A culturally relevant appro ach to literacy teaching. Theory into Practice, 31, 312320. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theo ry of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32 465-491.
254 Lam, W.S.E. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager writing on the internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34 457-482. Lankshear, C. (1997). Changing literacies Buckingham: Open University Press. Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning. Buckingham: Open University Press. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leander, K.M., & Rowe, D.W. (2006). Mapping literacy spaces in motion: A rhizomatic Analysis of a classroom literacy performance. Reading Research Quarterly, 41 428-460. LeCompte, M.D., Preissle, J., and Tesch, R. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Lee, V.E., & Croninger, R.G. (1994). The rela tive importance of home and school in the development of literacy skills for middle-grade students. American Journal of Education, 102 286-323. Leki, I. (1995). Coping strategies of ESL st udents in writing tasks across the curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 29 235-260. Leki, I. (2004). Meaning and development of academic literacy in a second language. In B. Huot, B. Stroble, C. Bazerman (Eds.). Multiple literacies for the 21st century (pp. 115-128). Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
255 Long, M. H. (1997). Construct validity in SL A research: A response to Firth and Wagner. Modern Language Journal, 82 357-371. Lucas, T., Henze, R. & Donato, R. (1990). Promoting the succe ss of Latino languageminority students: An explorat ory study of six high schools. Harvard EducationalReview, 60, 315-340. Luke, A. (1996). Genres of power? Literacy education and the produc tion of capital. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.). Literacy in society (pp. 308-338). Edinburgh Gate: Addison, Wesley, Longman. Maguire, M.H. and Graves, B. (2001). Sp eaking personalities in primary school childrenÂ’s L2 writing. TESOL Quarterly, 35 561-593. Major, E.M. & Brock, C.H. (2003). Fostering positive dispositions toward diversity: Dialogical explorations of a moral dilemma. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30 726. Mansfield, N. (2000). Subjectivity: Theories of the self from Freud to Haraway. St. Leonards, NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Maxwell, J.A. (1996). Qualitative research design : An interactive approach Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. McCarthey, S.J. (1994). Authors, text, and talk: The intern alization of dialogue from social interaction during writing. Reading Research Quarterly, 29 201-231. McCarthey, S.J. (2001). Identity construc tion in elementary readers and writers. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 122-151.
256 McCarthey, S.J., Lpez-Velsquez, A.M, Garca, G.E., Lin, S., & Guo, Y. (2004). Understanding writing contexts fo r English language learners. Research in The Teaching of English, 38 351-394. McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg galaxy: The making of typographic man. Toronto, Canada: The University of Toronto Press. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill. Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case st udy applications in education San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Mignolo, W.D. (1995/2003). The darker side of the Renaissance: Literacy, territoriality, and colonization. Ann Arbor, MI: The Univ ersity of Michigan Press. Miles, M.B., and Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook of methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Moje, E. B. (2000). Â“To be part of the st oryÂ”: The literacy pr actices of gangsta adolescents. Teachers College Record, 102, 651-690. Moje, E.B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R.W. (2001). Â“Maestro, what is Â‘qualityÂ’?Â”: Language, literacy, and di scourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 469-498. Moje, E. B. (2002). Re-framing adolescent literacy research for new times: Studying youth as a resource. Reading Research and Instruction, 41 211-228. Moll, L. C. (1988). Some key issues in teaching Latino students. Language Arts, 65 465472.
257 Moll, L., Sez, R., & Dworkin, J. (2001). Expl oring biliteracy: Two student case examples of writing as a social practice. Elementary School Journal, 101 435449. Moore-Hart, M.A. (2002). Creating a pathwa y to multicultural education in urban communities: Real-life experiences for preservice teachers. Reading Horizons, 42 139-173. Muoz Ryan, P. (2000). Esperanza rising New York: Scholastic. Murillo, E.G., Jr. (2002). How does it feel to be a problem?: Â“DiscipliningÂ” the transnational subject in the American s outh. In Wortham, S., Murillo, E.G., Jr., & Hamann, E.T. (Eds.). Education in the new Latino diaspora: Policy and the politics of Identity (pp. 215-240). Westport, Connecticut: Ablex Publishing. National Center for Educati on Statistics (2003). Language mi nority school-age children, elementary/secondary education. Retrieved November 11, 2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe New London Group (1996). A pe dagogy of multiliteracies. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60-92. Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolit ical context of multicultural education. New York: Longman. Norton-Peirce, B. (1995). Social iden tity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly 29, 9-32. OÂ’Byrne, B. (2001). Needed: A compass to na vigate the multilingual English classroom. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 44 440-449.
258 Ogbu, J. U. (1991). Immigrant a nd involuntary minorities in co mparative perspective. In M.A. Gibson & J.U. Ogbu (Eds.). Minority status and schooling: A comparative study of immigrant and involuntary minorities (pp. 3-36). New York: Garland Publishing. Ong, W.J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word London: Routledge. Ortiz, F. (1940/1995). Cuban counterpoint: Tobacco and sugar. Durham: Duke University Press. Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Recipr ocal teaching of comp rehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1 117-175. Parks, S. (2001). Moving from school to the workplace: Disciplin ary innovation, border crossings, and the reshap ing of a written genre. Applied Linguistics, 22 405-438. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pradl, G.M. (2002). Linking instructional intervention and professional development: Using the ideas behind Puente High School English to inform educational policy. Educational Policy, 16 522-546. Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emergi ng traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly, 25 407-30. Reyes, C.C. (2001). Language and literacy mediating school experience: An ethnographic case study of a high school Latina. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62 (07), 2320. (UMI No. 3019420)
259 Riojas-Cortez, M., Flores, B.B., Smith, H.L ., & Clark, E.R. (2003). Cuntame un cuento [Tell me a story]: bridging family literacy traditions with school literacy. Language Arts, 81 62-71. Rodriguez, L. J. (1993). Always running, La vida loca: Gang days in L.A. Willimantic, CT: Curbstone Press. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinki ng: cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press. Rubinstein-Avila, E. (2001). From their po ints of view: Literacies among Latino immigrant students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62 (04), 1306. (UMI No. 3012932) Ruddell, R.B., & Unrau, N.J. (1994). Reading as a meaning-construction process: The reader, the text, and the teacher. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.). Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading 4th edition (pp. 996-1056). Newark, DE: Internationa l Reading Association. Santa Barbara Classroom Disc ourse Group (1994). Constructing literacy in classrooms: Literate action as social accomplishment. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.). Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading 4th edition (pp. 124154). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Scribner, S. & Cole, M. (1981/1988). Unpacking literacy. In E.R. Kintgen, B.M. Kroll, & M. Rose (Eds.). Perspectives on literacy (pp. 57-70). Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press. Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences New York: Teachers College Press.
260 Seller, M.S. (1994). Immigrant women Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press. Short, D. J. (2000). Teacher discourse in social studies cla ssrooms: How teachers promote academic literacy for English language learners. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61 (05), 1718. (UMI No. 9972030) Siegel, M. & Fernandez, S.L. (2000). Critical approaches to readi ng research. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R.Barr (Eds.). Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 3 (pp. 141-152). Mahwah, N. J.: Erlbaum. Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan. Sleeter, C.E. (1996). Multicultural education as social activism Albany: State University of New York Press. Sleeter, C.E. (2001). Preparing teachers for cu lturally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52 94-106. Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L. S., & Reed, P. M. (2005). The construction of meaning and identity in the composition and r eading of an architectural text. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 70-88. Smedley, A. (1999). Race in North America: Origin and evolution of a worldview Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Stake, R.E. (1994). Case Study: Composition and Performance. The Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 122 31-44. Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
261 Stapleton, P. (2002). Critiquing voice as a vi able pedagogical tool in L2 writing: Returning the spotlight to ideas. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 177190. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice New York: Cambridge University Press. Street, B. V. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approac hes to literacy in development, ethnography and education London: Longman. Street, B. V. (2005a). Introduction: New literacy studies and literacies across educational contexts. In B. V. Street (Ed.). Literacies across educati onal contexts: Mediating learning and teaching. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon. Street, B. V. (2005b, December). Literacy, Â‘technologyÂ’ and multimodality: Implications for pedagogy and curriculum. Plenary presentation at the 55th annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Miami, FL. Surez-Orozco, M. M. (2001). Globalization, i mmigration, and educat ion: The research agenda. Harvard Educational Review, 71 345-365. Surez-Orozco, M. M., & Pez, M. M. (2002) The research agenda. In M.M. SurezOrozco, & M.M. Pez (Eds.). Latinos: Remaking America (pp. 1-30). Berkeley: University of California Press. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in acade mic and research settings. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
262 Takaki, R. (1993). A different mirror: A hist ory of multicultural America. Boston: Little, Brown & Co. Thompson, M. K. (2005). Intersecting literac ies: Connecting culture, ethnicity and gender. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66 (05), 1625. (UMI No. 3175520) Tiede, K. D. (1996). Appropriating the discourse of science: A case study of a grade eight science class. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58 (06), 2041. (UMI No. NN19037) Trueba, H.T. (2004). The new Americans: Immigrant s and transnationals at work Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Van Kleeck, A. (2004). Fostering preliter acy development via storybook sharing interactions: The cultural context of main stream family practices. In C.A. Stone, E.R.Silliman, F.J.Ehren & K.Apel (Eds.). Handbook of Language and Literacy: Development and disorders (pp.175-208). New York: Guilford Press. VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research Norwood, N. J.: Ablex. Van Sluys, K. (2003). Writing and identity construction: A young authorÂ’s life in transition. Language Arts, 80, 176-184. Vollmer, C. G. (2000). Classroom contexts for academic literacy: The intersection of language and writing development in secondary ESL classrooms. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62 (01), 106. (UMI No. 3002305) Viggiano, R. (2003). Cultural integration th rough storytelling in art and language: An action research project with juni or high Latino immigrant students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (05), 1591. (UMI No. 3091304)
263 Vyas, S. (2004). Exploring bicultural identiti es of Asian high school students through the analytic window of a literature club. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48, 12-23. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Warshauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L. (2004). Technology and equity in schooling: Deconstructing the digital divide. Educational Policy, 18, 562-588. Weinstein, S. (2002). The writing on the wa ll: Attending to self-motivated student literacies. English Education, 35, 21-45. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wertsch, J.V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultu ral approach to mediated action Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Willis, A. I. (1995). Reading the world of sc hool literacy: Contextua lizing the experience of a young African American male. Harvard Educational Review, 65 30-49. Wolcott, H.F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Ybarra, R.E. (2004). Writing as a hostile act: A reason for Latino studentsÂ’ resistance to learning. In R.E. Ybarra, & N. Lpez (Eds.). Creating alternative discourses in the education of Latinos and Latinas: A reader (pp. 89-112). New York: Peter Lang. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
264 Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17 165-187. Zentella, A. C. (2005). Perspectives on la nguage and literacy in Latino families and communities. In A.C. Zentella (Ed.). Building on strength: Language and literacy in Latino families and communities (pp. 1-12). New York: Teachers College Press. Zhu, W. (2001). Performing ar gumentative writing in English: Difficulties, processes, and strategies. TESL Canada Journal, 19 34-50.
266 Appendix A: Consent/Assent Forms Parental Consent Letter Dear Parents or Guardians: My name is Mary-Virginia Feger and I am a graduate student in the Department of Childhood Education at the University of South Florida. My academic advisor, Dr. Kathryn Laframboise, and I would like to incl ude your child and his/ her classmates in a study called: Literacy events in an ESOL class. This study is taking place only in the 7th grade ESOL class. For the purpose of this study, we need your permission. You are only invited to participate in this study. As part of his/her regularly schedule d ESOL (English) program, your child will have the opportunity: To practice literacy events su ch as reading and writing. To discuss various types of writing a nd how they are used in different contexts. To use vocabulary to discuss the arra ngement and design of his/her texts. To discuss the constructi on of his/her texts. To participate in a theatrical play with his/her classmates. This study will occur in the following manner: 1. On the first day, there will be an informative meeting at which I will explain the consent form. 2. On the following day, I will be in the classroom to collect your consent forms. 3. During the next six weeks, there will be10-12 students that will participate in the phase Â“text discussion.Â” These st udents will meet with me in three short sessions that will be tape-reco rded concerning their writing and literacy events in the ESOL class. The time needed for each interview is 30 minutes. The interview will take place before school in the ESOL classroom, or after school in the ESOL classroom. The total time for each studentÂ’s participation in the interviews will be approximately 1 and one half hours. 4. In May, the whole class will participate in a dramatic phase that will be videotaped. 5. The total time for this study is ni ne weeks, from April through May. 6. The texts that your child shares will be copied but at no time will the name of your child appear on them. Your childÂ’s participation in this study is completely voluntary and There are no known risks involved in th is study. The benefits are that your childÂ’s writing and reading may improve.
267 Appendix A: (continued) Consent/Assent Forms Any child can decide not to par ticipate in this study at time. Also, parents have the ability to decline permission for their childÂ’s participation at any time and for any reason. We will not identify your child, or your childÂ’s teachers, or the name of the school in any report. Only the author of the study, or the Institutional Review Board of USF and the personnel who represent USF are allowed to review these documents. The results of this study will be used as a report, in a journal article, or in a conference presentation. Pseudonyms will be used to replace any identifying information in all publications or public presentations. At no time will the name of your child, the teacher, or the school be used and the information obtained will not be part of your childÂ’s record or the records of the school. If you want your child to part icipate in this study, please Read and sign the consent forms attached to this letter. Keep a copy of the form for yourself and send a signed copy to your childÂ’s ESOL class. Also, please read the letter to your ch ild and have them sign the attached form. By signing this form, you agree that 1. We have informed you of the studyÂ’s purpose and 2. You are giving permission for your child to participate. If you have any questions or concerns about this study, please feel free to contact MaryVirginia Feger at (941) 586-9035. PLEASE SIGN THE OFFICIAL PARENT CONSENT FORM AND RETURN IT TO THE ESOL CLASS on ___________________. Sincerely, Mary-Virginia Feger Principal Investigator __________________________ ______________ Signature of Parent or guardian date __________________________ ______________ Signature of Student date
268 Appendix A: (continued) Parental Consent/Spanish Formulario de Consentimiento para los Padres y sus Nios Queridos Padres o Guardianes: Me llamo Mary-Virginia Feger y soy una estudiante de postgrado del Departamento de Educacin Infantil de la Universidad del Sur de la Florida. A mi consejera acadmica, la doctora K. Lafram boise y yo nos gustara incluir a su nio(a) junto con sus compaeros de clase en un es tudio titulado: Los eventos alfabetizaciones en una clase de ESOL. Este estudio se es t solamente en el sptimo grado de ESOL (ingls). Por el propsito de este estudio necesitamos su permiso. Como parte de su clase regular programada de ESOL (ingls), su nio(a) tendr la oportunidad: de practicar los eventos alfabetizacio nes como lectura y escritura. de discutir los varios tipos de escr itura y como se salos en contextos diferentes. de usar el vocabulario para discutir el arreglo y diseo de sus textos. de discutir la constr uccin de sus textos. El estudio se llevar a cabo de la siguiente manera: 1. El primer da, habr una reuni n informativa donde entregar el formulario de consentimiento. 2. El siguiente da, estar en el saln de clase para recoger sus formularios de consentimiento. 3. Durante las prximas seis semanas, habrn entre 10 y 12 estudiantes que participaran en la fase Â“discusi n de textos.Â” Estos alumnos se entrevistarn conmigo en tres sesiones cortas que se grabarn acerca de su escritura y los eventos alfabetizaciones de ESOL. El tiempo que se necesita para cada entrevista es 30 minutos. Las tres entrevistas se efectuarn antes de la escuela en el saln de ESOL, o despus de la escuela en el saln de ESOL o durante el almuerzo. El tiempo total de la participacin de cada estudiante en las entrevistas pudiera ser aproximadamente 1 y media horas. 4. En Mayo, toda la clase se participarn en la fase dramtica que se grabar en un video. 5. El tiempo total de este estudio es un perodo de seis semanas, de Abril hasta Mayo. 6. Los textos que su nio(a) compartir sern reproducidos pero en ningn momento el nombre de su nio(a) ser nombrado. 7. Durante la clase, su nio(a) particip ar en las actividades diarias que la maestra ha planeado. Observar y tomar notas acerca de las actividades diarias.
269 Appendix A: (continued) Parental Consent/Spanish La participacin de su nio(a) en este estudio es completamente voluntaria, y No se conocen riesgos que este estudio pueda comprender, y los beneficios son que la habilidad de es critura y lectura de su nio(a) pueda mejorar. Elijir a participar o no participar en este estudio no afectar el nivel de aprendizaje de su nio(a). Ud. tambin tiene la libertad de retira r su permiso para la participacin de su nio(a) en cualquier mome nto y por cualquier razn. Toda la informacin que se obtenga dur ante este estudio ser mantenida confidencialmente. Solo el personal autorizado de la investigacin o la Junta de Revisin Institucional de USF y el personal que representa a USF puede revisar nuestros documentos. Los resultados de este estudio podra n ser usados para un reporte, en un artculo en un peridico, o en una presentacin en una conferencia. Se usarn seudnimos en lugar de cu alquier informacin de identificacin en todas las publicaciones o presentaciones pblicas. El nombre del nio(a), de la maestra, y de la escuela no ser revelado en ningn informe. En otras palabras, la informacin obtenida en este estudio no formar parte del archivo de la escuela. No hay una remuneracin para la pa rticipacin de su nio(a) en este estudio. Si desea que su nio(a) particip e en este estudio, por favor Lea y firme los formularios de cons entimiento adjuntos a esta carta. Qudese con una copia del formular io para Ud. y mande una copia firmada a la clase de ESOL (ingls). Al firmar este formulario Ud. verifica que 1. Le hemos informado sobre el estudio y su propsito. 2. Ud. est permitiendo que su nio(a) participe. Si tiene alguna pregunta o preocupaci n acerca de este estudio, usted puede contactar Mary-Virginia Feger al tel fono (941) 586-9035. Si tiene alguna pregunta acerca de sus derechos como participante en este estudio, usted puede contactar la Junta de Revisin Institucional (IRB) en la Universidad del Sur de la Florida (USF) al telfono (813) 974-5638. POR FAVOR FIRME EL FORMULARIO DE CONSENTIMIENTO OFICIAL Y DEVUELVALO A LA CLASE DE ESOL el_____________________. Sinceramente, Mary-Virginia Feger, In vestigadora Principal ______________________________ ________________ Firma del padre o guardin fecha ______________________________ ________________ Firma del estudiante fecha
270 Informed Consent for an Adult Social and Behavioral Sciences University of South Florida Title of research study : Literacy events in an ESOL classroom Person in charge of study : Mary-Virginia Feger Study Location : XXX Middle School This form outlines the procedures involved in this study. Your partic ipation in this study is completely voluntary. Before your decision : After reading about the study, you will be asked to sign this consent form. If you have any questions, consult with the principal investigator, who is responsible for the study. Read this consent form in order to understand what this study involves. Questions are welcomed : If, during the course of the study, you have any questions, ask the principal investigator to provide answers. After you read this form, you can : This study is completely voluntary. If you want to participate in the study, you can indicate your approval by signing the consent form. Take your time to think about it. Remember, if you do not want to participate, you do not have to sign the form. The purpose of this study: The purpose of this study is to provide a de tailed portrait of the literacy events in which 7th grade English learners engage and interview participants about their views of literacy events a nd texts. You are being aske d to participate because you are a bilingual teacher with the knowledge and disposition to be culturally responsive. For linguistically and cultur ally diverse students, teachers who are culturally responsive create positive contexts and provide changes for students to discover pride in their ethnicities, languages, and cultural identities. Your participation will begin in April, 2006 and conclude when school ends in May, 2006. Study visits will be 4 days pe r week for 4 hours each day. There will be a total of 27-29 visits to the classroom. In additi on, the evening class performance will be videotaped.
271 What other choices do you have if you decide not to take part? If you decide not to take part in this study, that is okay. There are no other options available; therefore the study w ill not take place in your classroom. How do you get started? If you decide to take part in this study, you will need to sign this consent form. The procedures in this study : 3) The principal investigator will write partic ipant observations of the literacy events in the classroom, and 4) You will be asked to participate in 3 interviews of 30 minutes each. These interviews can take place at your conve nience either before school, after school, or at lunch. These interviews will be ta pe-recorded and transcribed. You will be given a copy of the transcripti ons to review for accuracy. 5) 10-12 students will be asked to participate in interviews. These will not interrupt classroom instruction, but will be done before school, during lunch, or after school in the library, caf eteria, or classroom. 6) The class performance, which is held in the evening, will be videotaped. Will you be paid for taking part in this study? There will be no payment for participation in this study. There will be no costs to you to participate in this study. What are the potential benefits if you take part in this study? The benefit of taking part in this stud y is the opportunity for reflection and discussion about the multiliteracies of culturally diverse students. What are the risks if you take part in this study? There are very few risks to those who take part in this study. The risk to your confidentiality will be minimized by protec ting your anonymity throughout the course of the study and in the study report. Your name, the studentsÂ’ names, the schoolÂ’s name, and the school districtÂ’s name will not be used in the study report. Instead, they will be replaced with pse udonyms. The results will not become part of any personnel file or student record in the schoo l, or in the sc hool district. In addition to the study report, the results ma y be used in articles, or in conference presentations. If so, your name or anyt hing else that would let people know who you are will not be used.
272 If you decide not to take part in this study, there are no pena lties of any kind. If you join the study and then later decide you want to stop, you may do so at any time by telling the principal investigator. If you have any questions about this study, call Mary-Virginia Fe ger at (941) 586-9035. If you have questions about your rights as a person who is taking pa rt in a study, call USF Research Compliance at (813) 974-5638. Consent to Take Part in this Research Study Your decision is voluntary. If you want to take part in this study, you can sign below. I freely give my consent to take part in this study. I understand that this is research. I have received a copy of this consent form. ________________________ ________________________ ___________ Signature Printed Name Date of Person taking part in study of Person taking part in study Statement of Person Obtaining Informed Consent I have carefully explained to the person taki ng part in the study what he or she can expect. The person who is giving consent unders tands the information contained in this consent form and their participation is voluntary. ________________________ ________________________ ________ Signature of Investigator Printe d Name of Investigator Date
273 Assent to Participate in Research University of South Florida Information for Individuals under the Age of 18 Who Are Being Asked To Take Part in Research Studies TITLE OF STUDY : Literacy events in an ESOL Class WHY AM I BEING ASKED TO TAKE PART IN THIS RESEARCH? You are being asked to take part in a resear ch study about literacy events. You are being asked to take part in this re search study because you are a 7th grade ESOL student in XXX Middle School. If you take part in th is study, you will be one of about 10-12 students in this study. WHO IS DOING THE STUDY? The person in charge of this study is Mary-V irginia Feger of the University of South Florida. She is being guided in this research by Dr. Laframboise. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY? By doing this study, we hope to learn about the writing and drawing that 7th grade English learners do. WHERE IS THE STUDY GOING TO TA KE PLACE AND HOW LONG WILL IT LAST? The study will take place at XXX Middle School You will be asked to come to the classroom 3 times before or after school or to the library during your lunch time (whatever is convenien t). Each of those visits will take about 30 minutes. The total amount of time you will be asked to voluntee r for this study is one and one-half hours between April 5 and May 22, 2006. WHAT WILL I BE ASKED TO DO? I will ask you to share some of your writing or drawings with me. I will ask you some questions about your writing and drawings. I will ask you about how you learn about writing and drawing and how you share your ideas about writing and drawing with others. You will be asked to talk about your writing or drawings and your answers will be taperecorded. During the class, you will be particip ating in normal activi ties that the teacher has planned and I will observe. Later, in Ma y, there will be a cla ss performance in which you may participate. I will video tape the performance. The teach erÂ’s instruction is a part
274 of the normal activity in this class and I will observe how the normal activities of the classroom happen. WHAT THINGS MIGHT HAPPEN THAT ARE NOT PLEASANT? To the best of our knowledge, the things you will be doing will not harm you or cause you any additional unpleasant experience. WILL SOMETHING GOOD HAPPEN IF I TAKE PART IN THIS STUDY? We cannot promise you that anything good will ha ppen if you decide to take part in this study. DO I HAVE TO TAKE PART IN THE STUDY? You should talk with your parents or anyone el se that you trust about taking part in this study. If you do not want to take part in the study, that is your d ecision. You should take part in this study because you really want to volunteer. If you do not think you want to take part in this study, you should talk this over with your parents and decide together. IF I DONÂ’T WANT TO TAKE PART IN THE STUDY, WHAT WILL HAPPEN? If you do not want to take pa rt in the study, there are othe r choices. For example, you could continue to participate in the cla ss and I would not ask you any questions. You would still benefit from the ESOL class just as you normally would when you participate every day. WILL I RECEIVE ANY REWARDS FOR TAKING PART IN THE STUDY? You will not receive any reward for taking part in this study. WHO WILL SEE THE INFORMATION I GIVE? Your information will be added to the inform ation from other people taking part in the study so no one will know who you are. No one, not even the people who are doing th is study, will know that the information you give comes from you.
275 CAN I CHANGE MY MIND AND QUIT? If you decide to take part in the study you stil l have the right to change your mind later. No one will think badly of you if you decide to quit. Also, the people who are running this study may need for you to stop. If this happens, they will tell you why. WHAT IF I HAVE QUESTIONS? You can ask questions about this study at a ny time. You can talk with your parents or other adults that you trust a bout this study. You can talk with the person who is asking you to volunteer. If you think of othe r questions later, you can ask them. Assent to Participate I understand what the person running this study is asking me to do. I have thought About this and agree to take part in this study. ________________________________________________ _______________ Name of person agreeing to take pa rt in the study Date ________________________________________________ ________________ Name of person providing information to subject Date
276 Appendix B: Teacher Interview Questions Teacher Interview #1 1. This is the third performa nce youÂ’ve done with the 7th grade class. What are your objective/s for these performances? 2. What inspired you to develop the performance? 3. Are there any differences between the e fforts of this yearÂ’s students and the efforts of previous yearsÂ’ students? 4. At this point who is the top student in terms of reaching the objectives? What qualifies that student? 5. What are your major frus trations at this point? 6. What role do the parents play? 7. What has been the reaction of the students to the story of Esperanza Rising ? 8. Often different students play different roles, the locati on of practice changes, or the script has been changed. How do these changes affect the plan? Teacher Interview #2 1. Do you notice at some points they are di fferent when they are involved in the play? Why is that? 2. What are you going to say to parents on day of the performance? Teacher Interview #3 1. What is the first criterion for assessment? 2. What knowledge do they need to have? 3. What about working with others? 4. What defines self-control? 5. Do they support one another and what does that involve? 6. What about leadership? 7. What does a student need to do to be a leader? 8. Are they collaborating? 9. Do you think the students understand the purpose of the play? Teacher Interview #4 1. Would you clarify what you mean by constructive? 2. Why do you emphasize the social aspect of presenting before other students? 3. Is that what you mean by constructive? 4. Is that what you mean by it, behavioral? Teacher Interview #5 1. Who was Cantinflas? 2. Do you think teachers can make room for everybody to perform?
277 Appendix B (continued): Teacher Interview Questions 3. The kids who werenÂ’t successful, like one wrote, Â“I was in the first play, and you kicked me out,Â” what can teachers do for those kinds of students who refuse to go along with the teacherÂ’s request? What can teachers do with those kinds of students? 4. The kids play around. What do you think the play ing around is? 5. The group was basically all Mexican a nd they were all playing around. Their playing around was a tension between th e teacher and them. Then towards the end, it changed. Right before the play, they got serious. In the dress rehearsal, the atmosphere was totally different. 6. What did they learn from the play? 7. Tell me about your interest in China.
278 Appendix C: Student Interview Questions Student Interview #1 1. Why does the teacher care a lot about this performance? 2. Why do you try your best? 3. What does the teacher expect from you? 4. What do you tell your parents about this performance? 5. What makes the performance fun? 6. How long have you been at this school? 7. Where did you go to school before this? Student Interview #2 1. What makes this performance diffe rent from things you do in other classes? In what ways? 2. Are your parents interested in your performance? If so, why? 3. What do you learn from participation in this performance?
279 Appendix D: Data Collection Matrix Research question Data collect ed Data analysis_________ 1. What happens when a *Observations *Three Characteristics group of 7th grade of Multimodal Literacy Latino/a ELLs and their *Grounded Theory Latina teacher produce a play in an after-school program during the final six weeks of the school year? 1 a) What is the relationship *Stude nt interviews *Discourse Analysis between the participantsÂ’ *Teacher interviews discourse practices and *Reflective responses their performance? 2. What are the *Obs ervations *Three Characteristics characteristics of the of Multimodal Literacy performances? *Discourse Analysis 2 a) Do the participants *Refl ective responses *Discourse Analysis validate their *LuisÂ’s interview performances? If so how?
280 Appendix E: Character Chart Pseudonym Character Name Description of Role _____________ Laura Introduction Laura rec ited the introduction in English for (in En glish) the first 3 weeks of the rehearsals. Jazmin replaced he r halfway through the 6-week rehearsal period. Jazmin Introduction Jazmin r ecited the introduction for the final 3 (in Eng lish) weeks, including in the final performance. She replaced Laura 3 weeks into the 6-week rehearsal period. Lena Introduction Lena recite d the Spanish translation of the (in Spanish) introduction. Roberto Narrator Roberto narrated the play. He was also given a walk-on line in the playÂ’s opening sequence. Eva Esperanza I Eva and Di ana shared the role of Esperanza. They are refe rred to in the case study by the Roman numerals I and II Eva played the role of Esperanz a I, which consisted of all the scenes up to the rising scene. Accustomed to being in charge as the ranch ownerÂ’s daughter, Esperanza I is very angry with Miguel (the son of her former servant) and suspects him of disloyalty in taking her savings without her permission. Esperanza is unaware of MiguelÂ’s secret plan to return to Mexico to find and reunite Abuelita with her family in California. Diana Esperanza II Esperanza II is the new Esperanza whose arrogance has been replaced with strength and compassion. By moving to California and starting over she found inspiration in the struggles of th e agricultural workers. She also found inspiration in the various proverbs and symbols infused with the values and beliefs of her father and grandmother. Diana plays Esperanza II from the rising scene until the end of the play.
281 Appendix E (continued): Character Chart Pseudonym Character Name Description of Role _____________ Mario Alfonso Alfonso is HortensiaÂ’s husband and MiguelÂ’s father. Alfonso and Hortensia are former servants of EsperanzaÂ’s family. Out of work after the fire destroys the ranch, Alfonso decides to move to California where his brother, Juan, is a farm worker. Ramona, EsperanzaÂ’s mother, as ks if she and Esperanza can accompany Alfonso and his family to look for work in California. Carlos Juan Juan is Alf onsoÂ’s brother. He lives in California lives in Ca lifornia with his wife, Josefina, his daughter Isabel, and twin boys. Juan is a farm worker. Lisa Josefina Josefina is JuanÂ’s wife and the mother of an 8-year-old daughter named Isabel, and 1-yearold twin boys. As an agricultural worker, she has a job sorting and packing fruit. When Es peranza arrives in California, she secures a job working with Josefina. Patricia Abuelita Abuelita is EsperanzaÂ’s wise, eccentric grandmother. She keeps stones in her pockets and gives them away as trinkets. She knits the zigzag mountain and valley pattern in her blankets, and uses the symbolic pattern to explain lifeÂ’s highs a nd lows. Abuelita is injured in the tragic fire, which demolishes the ranch. Unable to travel to Ca lifornia due to her injury, Abuelita stays behind in Mexico. Miguel initiates a plan to return there and escort Abuelita to California so the family can be reunited. Tania Ramona (Mam) Ramona is EsperanzaÂ’s mother. While working in the fields, she contracts an illness called Valley Fever from microscopic dust spores. She is nursed back to he alth by the doctor. Miguel plans to strengthen RamonaÂ’s spirits by reuniting Abuelita with the family.
282 Appendix E (continued): Character Chart Pseudonym Character Name Description of Role _____________ Luis Miguel Miguel, Alfonso and HortensiaÂ’s son, worked for EsperanzaÂ’s father. Miguel is the same age as Esperanza. One day in Mexico, Esperanza Esperanza. One day in Mexico, Esperanza arrogantly told Migue l their status precluded any close relationshi p. Miguel was hurt, but remained silent. Later, when EsperanzaÂ’s father is murdered and the ranch is destroyed, all of them, except Abuelita, move to California. Miguel proves his loyalty and love by reuniting Abuelita with the family. Nina Isabel Isabel is Ju an and JosefinaÂ’s nave 8-year-old daughter. As a farm workerÂ’s daughter, she is awestruck by st ories of EsperanzaÂ’s wealth. She is also intrigued by stories of AbuelitaÂ’s eccentric habits of giving trinkets and sharing knowledge. Linda Hortensia Hortensi a is AlfonsoÂ’s wife and MiguelÂ’s moth er. She is like a mother to Esperanza and even saved her life when she was five. Hortensia goes to California with Esperanza and her mother after the ranch is destroyed and they are left with nothing.
283 Appendix F: Discourse Models Table 3 The Discourse model of strategies ___________________________________________ Situated Meanings _______________________________________________________________________ 1. The teacherÂ’s just telling us how to act. 2. She shows us how to act and what ar e going to be the steps, or how to do it. 3. I didnÂ’t memorize it looking at the paper. I just memorized it without looking at the paper. 4. I studied over and over. 5. To read over and over and over and over again. 6. I keep on reading it until it gets memorized. 7. I keep on reading it and I turn it over. 8. I tell her, Â“Let me practice the introduction.Â” 9. In front of my parents. 10. The students that were in fron t like the moms and dads helped us. ______________________________________________________________________ Used by Patricia, Eva, Lena, Jazmin, and Linda.
284 Appendix F (continued): Discourse Models Table 4 The Discourse model of the complexity of performing ___________________________ Situated Meanings _______________________________________________________________________ 1. For me it was hard. 2. The difficulty I had was when I was supposed to float in the air up to the sky. 3. First it was hard because we got to act. 4. The rehearsal was hard. 5. To do something quick, before the curtains open. 6. ItÂ’s hard to memorize a lot of different parts of a play. 7. It was easy because we were working hard. 8. It was an easy paper to do. 9. Being Josefina is easy becau se I donÂ’t have that many lines to study. 10. It was easy for me. 11. I was cool at rehearsing. 12. We couldnÂ’t concentr ate on what we were doing. 13. We were trying hard to do it right. 14. We learned a lot of things. _______________________________________________________________________ Used by Lisa, Linda, Jazmin, Ma rio, Patricia, and Diana.
285 Appendix F (continued) : Discourse Models Table 5 The Discourse model of the em otional effect of performing ________________________ Situated Meanings ________________________________________________________________________ 1. You think youÂ’re going to be embarrasse d in front of all your parents, all the parents of the other kids. 2. You are nervous when the people are looking at you. 3. I was nervous like other people were too. 4. The day of the presentation everybody was nervous. 5. We all were nervous. 6. Well, IÂ’m not nervous. 7. IÂ’m feeling nervous, like kind of nervous. 8. WeÂ’re going to be in front of all the people. 9. Nervous to go out in front of all the people. ________________________________________________________________________ Used by Lena, Patricia, Mari o, Eva, Lisa, and Luis.
286 Appendix F (continued): Discourse Models Table 6 The caring Discourse model ________________________________________________ Situated Meanings _______________________________________________________________________ 1. Mrs. R decided to take me home. 2. Mrs. R takes me home, now itÂ’s good. 2. She picked me to do this character. 3. Mrs. R changed us and we did a good job. 4. She wants our parents to be happy, and for us to be proud of ourselves. 5. She wants us to get good grades and then perform for our parents. 6. IÂ’m proud of Mrs. R. _______________________________________________________________________ Used by Lisa, Jazmin, Diana, Linda, and Mario.
287 Appendix F (continued): Discourse Models Table 7 The Discourse model of unwilling participation _______________________________ Situated Meanings _____________________________________________________________________ 1. They donÂ’t want to do it. 2. Some of the people didnÂ’t want to do it. 3. We couldnÂ’t have fun. 4. I want to go play soccer. 5. SheÂ’s putting too much pressure on us. 6. I canÂ’t play for the rest of the year. 7. I donÂ’t really like acting. 8. He wanted to quit. 9. She did not want to do her part. 10. I donÂ’t like to work with people. _______________________________________________________________________ Used by Laura, Diana, and Roberto.
288 About the Author Mary-Virginia Feger received a Bachel orÂ’s Degree in English from the State University of New York College at Br ockport in 1972 and M.Ed. in TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) fr om Temple University in 1976. During her MasterÂ’s Degree program, sh e taught immigrants at a Philadelphia community center. After her degree, she taught Southeast Asia n adults experiencing resettlement in the Philadelphia region. She also taught adult Engl ish language learners in New Jersey and Maryland before moving to Florida in 1983. In Florida, she taught secondary English, and then for over a decade taught adolescent English language learners before entering the Ph.D. program at the Univ ersity of South Florida. While in the Ph.D. program at the Un iversity of South Florida, Ms. Feger authored an article published in Multicultural Education Also while a USF graduate student, Ms. Feger presented at a regional TESOL conference and collaborated with others in presenting at the National Reading Conference.