Pacheco (2010)

8/8/2019 Pacheco (2010)

1/26

Reading Research Quarterly 45(3) pp. 292317 dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.3.2 2010 International Reading Association292

A B S T R A C T

English-Language Learners ReadingAchievement: Dialectical RelationshipsBetween Policy and Practices in

Meaning-Making OpportunitiesMariana Pacheco

University of WisconsinMadison, USA

While reading researchers and practitionerscontinue to grapple with ways to enhancethe capabilities of young struggling readers,

recent far-reaching educational reforms in Californiahave raised concerns about the consequences of thesereforms on the academic potential for millions ofEnglish-language learners (ELLs). Over the past de-cade, the convergence of state and federal policies has

institutionalized constructions of reading that empha-size discrete reading skills and subskills (e.g., phone-mic awareness, phonics, vocabulary). Whereas somereading researchers argue that these skills and subskillsare essential aspects of the reading process (Adams,1990; National Institute of Child Health and HumanDevelopment [NICHD], 2000; Snow, Burns, & Griffin,1998), others have expressed concerns about how nar-row skills-based reading approaches might negativelyaffect ELLs from nondominant communities (Butler,

Orr, Gutirrez, & Hakuta, 2000; Gndara et al., 2000;Gutirrez et al., 2002; Gutirrez, Morales, & Martinez,2009; Olson, 2007).

In 1998, California voters approved Proposition227, an initiative that virtually eliminated primary lan-guage use in public schools and significantly alteredthe few bilingual programs in existence (Gndara et al.,2000). Within several years, the federal No Child Left

Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 and its state reading grantprogram institutionalized an accountability frame-work that relied primarily on students performance onEnglish standardized assessments, penalizing schoolsand districts if subgroups (e.g., ELLs) failed to demon-strate adequate yearly progress. Together, this frame-work coalesced around standardized approaches tolearning English, to the teaching and learning of read-ing, and to assessment (Abedi, 2004; Gutirrez, Asato,& Baquedano-Lpez, 2000; Wright, 2005).

This case study of reading activity in third-grade bilingual classrooms at a state-sanctioned successful school exam-

ines the influences of the California accountability frameworkProposition 227, No Child Left Behind, and the federalReading First programon shifting beliefs and practices around what counts as reading. The researcher used cultural-historical theoretical perspectives on the socioculturally mediated nature of teaching and learning to examine the jointconstruction of reading activity as well as account for the institutional constraints within which teachers and their studentsaccomplished this work. Specifically, she employed participant observations and video recordings of Spanish and Englishlanguage arts instructional periods, in-depth teacher and administrator interviews, a collection of student work samples,and a collection of relevant school and district documents to examine the mediation of reading activity across school,district, and state and federal policy contexts. To examine the dialectical relationship between policy and practice, sheanalyzes two bilingual classrooms in depth through heuristic tools that illuminate how particular discourse patterns andparticipation structures align broadly with policy-sanctioned notions of what counts as reading. Analyses of narrative textsand transcripts illustrate that this alignment had significant implications for English-language learners meaning-makingopportunities. This analysis contributes a theoretical conceptualization of reading activity as implicated in the dialecticalrelationships between policies, practices, resources, and beliefs around what counts as reading across institutional con-

texts and how these processes affect English-language learners reading potential.

8/8/2019 Pacheco (2010)

2/26

293English-Language Learners Reading Achievement: Dialectical Relationships Between Policy and Practices

Still, research has illustrated that even in restrictivepolicy contexts, practitioners employ some flexibility incurriculum decision making and draw on their beliefs,expertise, experiences, and ethos in their organizationof reading practices, particularly for young strugglingreaders (Coburn, 2006; Daz & Flores, 2001; Hoffman& Pearson, 2000; Olson, 2007). To explore how the ac-

countability framework constrained or enhanced thisflexibility, I undertook a case study of reading activ-ity in bilingual classrooms at a state-designated high-achieving school that maintained its EnglishSpanishbilingual program even after Proposition 227 mandatedEnglish only. This context allowed for an examinationof how teachers coordinated reading practices for ELLswith a broad range of English- and Spanish-languagecapabilities, reading achievement levels, and schoolingexperiences in a shifting reform landscape.

This study was informed by cultural-historicaltheoretical perspectives on the socioculturally medi-

ated nature of human learning and development (Cole,1996; Engestrm & Miettinen, 1999; Vygotsky, 1978).Informed by this view, research questions centeredon the sociocultural organization of reading practicesin classrooms where ELLs were being transitioned toEnglish-only reading. As cultural-historical approachesconceptualize learning as stretching across social andmaterial environments (Roth & Lee, 2007, p. 189), re-search questions also explored alignments or misalign-ments between bilingual classroom reading practicesand school, district, state, and federal policy contextsthrough in-depth interviews with school and districtpractitioners, as well as supporting school and districtdocuments.

For analytic purposes, I discuss these layers of con-text independent of one another; in the final discussionsection, I draw connections between classroom read-ing practices and policies and practices across broaderinstitutional contexts. Thus, this theoretical approachguided an analysis into the dialectical relationship be-tween policies, practices, resources, and beliefs aboutthe extent to which what counts as reading affectedELLs reading potential (Coburn, 2006; McDermott &

Varenne, 1999; Olson, 2007; Roth & Lee, 2007; Smith,2004).

In my discussion of the findings, I first elaborateon how local interpretations of the current English-onlyaccountability framework promoted an alignment be-tween high-stakes assessments, curriculum standards,and the districts reading program and classroom read-ing practicesin Spanish and English. Next, I analyzereading practices, employing Gutirrezs (1993) char-acterization of classroom scripts as a heuristic tool toilluminate how the highly complex social interactionsafforded sense-making opportunities for ELLs and ex-panded their academic potential. Broadly speaking,analyses of bilingual classroom reading events (e.g.,comprehension-based discussions) demonstrate thatthe realization of what counts as reading across socialand institutional contexts resulted in narrower ap-proaches to reading skills and dispositions. Finally, Iconclude this discussion with implications of this re-search for practitioners, administrators, teacher educa-

tors, and reading researchers.

The Policy Context:A Brief OverviewIn this section, I begin with a brief overview of stateand federal accountability systems, reading policy, andEnglish-only policy to contextualize how social ac-tors made sense of these convergent policies at PacificElementary School in the Alvarez School District (allnames are pseudonyms) and how local practices sub-

stantiated this framework. The timeline in Figure 1 il-lustrates this convergence.The trend toward educational policies that mandate

particular curriculum programs, emphasize part icularreading approaches, and privilege norm-referenced as-sessments in a high-stakes context has its roots in thestandards movement, whereby schooling was rede-fined in relation to a nation perceived to be at risk(Apple, 2001; Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery, & Taubman,1995; Smith, 2004; Spring, 2001). In California, thepublic school landscape changed with back-to-basics

Figure 1. State and Federal Policy Timeline

1990s 1998 2002 20022003

Curriculum frameworksand standards

Back-to-basics readingpolicy

Proposition 227 State testing and

reporting

No Child Left Behind Act Reading First

Pacific Elementary School(pseudonym)

8/8/2019 Pacheco (2010)

3/26

Reading Research Quarterly 45(3)294

reading policies in the 1990s (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 1999) and the spawn of legislation that made(English) standardized tests and the states curriculumstandards the centerpieces of the Standardized Testingand Reporting (STAR) system (California Department ofEducation, n.d.).

In essence, California used standardized exams andstandards-based tests to evaluate students academicprogress, including student subgroups (i.e., ELLs), asreflected in school rankings determined through the

Academic Performance Index (API). The STAR system,then, meant that high-poverty, high-ELL schools facedmore restrictions in their testing of student subgroupsand simultaneously faced increasing visibility as low-or high-ranking schools in accordance with the API.In 2001, for example, Pacific was ranked a 5 in over-all comparisons and a 9 in comparison to schools withsimilar demographics on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 be-ing the highest rank. At the time of this study, however,these rankings had begun to decline.

This accountability framework coincided with the1998 passage of Proposition 227, the English for theChildren initiative that virtually eliminated the fewprograms that provided ELLs with some form of pri-mary language instruction and support. As discussedearlier, researchers have examined the consequenc-es of Proposition 227 on ELLs schooling experi-ences (Gndara et al., 2000; Green & Heras, in press;Gutirrez et al., 2000; Parrish et al., 2002). Only a fewyears later, in 2002, NCLB provisions regarding read-ing approaches and adequate yearly progress intensifiedthe high-stakes, English-only framework for ELLs and

their teachers. While the state STAR system mandatedacademic progress, the federal system ratified a distinctframework for adequate yearly progress (see www2.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/ayp/edpicks.jhtml?src=ln).In particular, the Reading First component discussedearlier provided federal grants for state programs thatcorresponded with phonics-based approaches, namelythose that promote mastery of discrete skills, such asphonemic awareness, believed to affect successful read-ing in later grades (Adams, 1990; NICHD, 2000; Snowet al., 1998).

These provisions created particular challenges fornondominant ELLs, since phonics-first approaches

facilitate reading skills that are necessary but not suf-ficient for long-term reading success and neglect theirunique language and schooling circumstances (August& Hakuta, 1997; August & Shanahan, 2006; Butleret al., 2000; Gndara, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly, &Callahan, 2003; Ramrez, 2000). Specifically, the issuesraised by the institutionalization of reading approachesfor monolingual English-speaking readers to Spanish-dominant students from nondominant communitiestransitioning to English-only reading were addressed in

this study. Namely, I examined how third-grade bilin-gual teachers negotiated the increasing political stakesaround reading achievement with their ELLs social,academic, and linguistic needs.

Theoretical Framework

and Literature ReviewThis study was informed by previous scholarly workthat has examined the extent to which outcomes-basedaccountability frameworks and reforms have promotedskills-based, remedial approaches to the teaching andlearning of literacy, particularly for struggling studentsfrom nondominant communities (Apple, 2001; delCarmen Salazar, 2008; Gutirrez et al., 2002, Gutirrezet al., 2009; Smith, 2004). At the same time, ELLscontinue to underperform on national tests of read-ing achievement (Fry, 2009; Gndara et al., 2003); in2005, for example, analyses of ELLs reading achieve-ment levels showed that 47% of them struggled behindtheir white English-speaking counterparts (Fry, 2007).Given the persistence of these students reading under-achievement, numerous researchers have addressed theconsequences of remedial approaches for these strug-gling readers, especially at a time when accountabilityframeworks have become increasingly punitive.

In California and other English-only educationstates, for example, school practitioners are significantlyconstrained by policies that regulate their expansion ofELLs social, cultural, linguistic, and intellectual capa-bilities in their first and second languages. As the chal-

lenges faced by ELLs and their teachers are intensifiedwhen students primary languages are restricted, thepropensity toward simplified, remedial approaches toEnglish reading can be exacerbated (Gutirrez et al.,2002; Moll, Daz, Estrada, & Lopes, 1992; Olson, 2007).Moreover, instructional approaches that hone discrete,isolable reading skills and tasks significantly limit thepotentially meaningful ways that students and teach-ers can utilize reading, language, and literacy (Block& Pressley, 2002; Campano, 2007; Cole, 1996; Freire& Macedo, 1989; Green & Heras, in press; Gutirrez,2008; Jimnez, Garca, & Pearson, 1995, 1996; Luke,

2003). In particular, these approaches overemphasizelower-level skills, including a focus on unit-basedanalyses of language, vocabulary instruction, decod-ing, and fluency, and simultaneously draw studentsaway from participation in social systems that facilitateexpanded interpretations of the world (Cole & Griffin,1983).

Gutirrez et al. (2009) argued that a history of dif-ference as deficiency has resulted in remedial courses,approaches, and curricula, and particularly where edu-

8/8/2019 Pacheco (2010)

4/26

English-Language Learners Reading Achievement: Dialectical Relationships Between Policy and Practices 295

cators seek to fix nondominant students deficiencies,an ideology of remediation prevails. For these students,

Instruction is organized around individually accomplished

tasks with generic or minimal assistance, narrow forms of

assessment, homogeneous grouping, and an overempha-

sis on basic skills with little connection to content or the

practices of literacy.... In the cases of California, Arizona,

and Massachusetts, remedial instruction is delivered in alanguage other than the home language. In these states,

we see how var ious ideologies of difference are indexed in

pedagogies, practices, and assumptions about students from

nondominant communities.... This ideology of remediation

has potent policy implications. (p. 225)

An ideology of remediation founded on deficit-basedviews denies the rich sociocultural and linguistic diver-sity (e.g., hybrid languages, registers, codes, vernaculars,specialized vocabularies, dialects) that nondominantstudents practice in their homes and communities (Ek,2008; Fought, 2003; Gee, 2004; Gutirrez, Baquedano-

Lpez, & Tejeda, 1999; Orellana, Reynolds, Dorner, &Meza, 2003; Zentella, 2005). Thus, ideologies aroundnondominant students deviation from dominant groupnorms are reflected in policies that promote academicachievement within a standardized English-only, skills-based, outcomes-driven framework.

For ELLs whose Spanish reading, transitionalEnglishSpanish reading, and progression in Englishreading have not been sufficiently examined (August &Hakuta, 1997; Bialystok, 2007; Garca, 2000; Handsfield& Jimnez, 2009; Jimnez et al., 1995), policy-sanctioned remediation further jeopardizes meaning-based approaches that have been shown to build on andexpand their social, cultural, intellectual, and linguis-tic toolkits (Gutirrez, 2008; Martnez-Roldn & Sayer,2006; Moll & Dworin, 1996). For example, researchhas demonstrated that the concern over ELLs linguistic(in)capabilities has exacerbated the broad mispercep-tion that English-speaking ability precedes readingcomprehension (Garca, 2000; Jimnez et al., 1995,1996; Olson, 2007).

One revealing study by Moll et al. (1992) comparedbilingual students participation across English- andSpanish-language reading groups. In the Spanish-language group, the students participated in qualita-

tively richer discussions in part because their bilingualteacher honed deep meaning making through consistentuse of higher order discussion questions. In contrast,students participation in the English-language readinggroup was affected by their still developing, albeit lim-ited, English capabilities and their English-monolingualteachers belief that these limited capabilities necessi-tated oversimplified discussions. Thus, the organiza-tion and quality of reading practices were substantiallyaffected by teachers conflation of language capabilities

with the quality and rigor of reading discussions. Thisresearch raises concerns about the long-term conse-quences of ELLs schooling circumstances. That is, theirlimited participation in deep meaning making poten-tially extends their constructionas struggling readers,since, in policy and practice, they are denied substantialopportunities to develop the sense-making capabilitiesthey will need across their academic trajectories.

This historical backdrop of deficit-based ideologiesand their salience in social and educational policies(Valencia, 1997) impelled a theoretical framework that,rather than viewing particular linguistic and culturalforms as deficient, conceptualizes the fundamental rolethese forms play in human learning and development.Cultural-historical theoretical perspectives have beenapplied to literacy teaching and learning, and reading inparticular, and conceptualize that literacy learning oc-curs through participation in joint activity mediated bysocial, cultural, and linguistic resources and tools (Cole,1996; Cole & Griffin, 1983; Engestrm, 1999; Trueba,

1988; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1991). This view con-tends that individual literacy learning and developmentmust be understood and examined as an emerging out-come of a whole activity system as participants, tools,and artifactsas artificially organized social systemsmediate literacy and affect how students make sense oftexts.

Cultural-historical, sociohistorical approaches toreading as a basic activity conceptualize a holistic, so-cioculturally mediated reading process that engages thesocial, cultural, and linguistic resources of students andteachers. Cole (1996) and his colleagues (Cole & Griffin,1983; Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition,1982) have distinguished the cognitive consequences ofa remedial approach to learning that ignores the role ofsocial context in human learning versus an approachthat re-mediates learning. Cole and Griffin (1983) pro-posed a conceptualization of reading as a basic activitysystem that re-mediates reading instruction and empha-sizes the skills as well as the social organization of ac-tivities and contexts that facilitate semiotic mediation:

Skills are always part of activit ies and settings, but they only

take on meaning in terms of how they are organized. So, in-

stead of basic skills, a socio-historical approach talks aboutbasic activities and instantiates those that are necessary and

sufficient to carry out the whole process of reading in the

general conditions for learning. (p. 73)

They argued that sign systems (e.g., language, reading)must function within larger basic activities to take onmeaning and develop students conscious awarenessof reading skills as components of the whole process ofreading. Furthermore, the notion of mediation framesand orients assistance by teachers or expert peersas a form ofre-mediation, or strategic social systems

8/8/2019 Pacheco (2010)

5/26


reorganization, as opposed to the remediation that pre-vails for underachieving students.

Activity-based views of reading emphasize semiot-ics and meaning making as the object of teaching andlearning through multiple mediational artifacts, bothmaterial and ideational, and rather than locate under-standing solely in the teacher or in the (English) learner,these views privilege coconstructed, cofacilitated sensemaking. They emphasize the purpose and functionof basic skills and the soundsymbol relationships oflanguage(s), as well as the broader objectives of strategi-cally coordinated, jointly constructed reading activitiesand contexts. Moreover, these views emphasize makingpresent at the onset those skills and capabilities that arethe object of reading activity; that is, reading compre-hension and reading for meaning are not suspended un-til students master a predetermined skill set.

Several bodies of inquiry have applied Vygotskys(1978) conceptualization of socioculturally mediatedhuman learning and development to literacy learning

activity. Across learning environments, these inqui-ries have deliberately challenged deficit-oriented ide-ologies through the use of nondominant ELLs English,Spanish, bi/multilingual, and bi/multicultural toolkitsand, rather than fixing them, explored how theyhave expanded students academic potential (Daz &Flores, 2001; Gutirrez, Baquedano-Lpez, Alvarez, &Chiu, 1999; Jimnez, 2000; Jimnez et al., 1995, 1996;Martnez, Orellana, Pacheco, & Carbone, 2008; Moll etal., 1992; Pacheco, 2009; Pacheco & Nao, 2009; Reyes,1992).

Martnez-Roldn and Sayer (2006), for example, in-

vestigated how Latino students exploited their bilingual/bidialectical capabilities to retell English and Spanishnarrative texts in both languages to examine the affor-dances of such cross-linguistic tasks. Specifically, theyfound that in spite of the researchers organization ofEnglish- and Spanish-designated texts and discussions,these bilingual students nevertheless deliberately andappropriately employed their Spanglisha kind of l in-guistic borderlandsinto their reading retellings in flu-id ways, that is, their Spanglish enabled unique forms oftalk and participation.

In the study presented here, cultural-historical the-oretical perspectives were employed to examine reading

activity, the unit of analysis, and the ways local pro-cesses around the implementation of a standardizedEnglish-only accountability framework affected teach-ers shifting notions around the organization of reading(Pacheco, 2005). These perspectives provide processu-al, semiotics-driven views of reading, and while readingactivity can be organized around expanded understand-ings of the world, it is also essential to examine the waystexts are used to decode, interpret, analyze, and inter-rogate the social world (Freire & Macedo, 1987; Luke &

Freebody, 1997). Specifically, regarding the long-termeffects of young readers meaning making, Luke andFreebody (1997) argued that it is essential to interro-gate whose meanings classroom reading practices anddiscourses reproduce, as explained in the following:

All texts represent cultural positions, ideologies, and dis-

courses. Many psychological models of reading have

failed to take up the question of whose meanings willcount in private and public forums. Where these questions

are not raised, classrooms run the risk of a reproductive

model of meaning, where teaching comprehension is about

cultural assimilation and colonization, about bringing read-

ers social epistemologies into acritical alignment with those

of a canonical corpus of texts. (p. 215)

This analysis of bilingual third-grade reading practices,then, took up the question of whose meanings count-ed across classrooms, teachers, and normative readingpractices with a particular focus on how engagementwith texts promoted the reproductive consumption of

texts to the determined understanding of them as in-dexes of particular worldviews and political agendas.Thus, I examined how teachers expanded studentsmeaning-making repertoires around school-based textsin their social organization of reading activity, particu-larly their emphasis on lower-level decoding and fixedmeanings.

Teachers and students jointly mediate reading ac-tivity through normative forms of talk, interaction, anddiscourse. These participation structures, however,are not merely contexts that surround (Cole, 1996,p. 132); rather, they are the very sources of language

and literacy learning. To describe and examine the so-cial and cognitive affordances of particular participa-tion patterns that different teachers organized, I drewon Gutirrezs (1993) elaboration of classroom scriptsas a heuristic tool. Although she developed these cat-egories based on her analysis of classroom data, thesescripts are not exhaustive. In her ethnographic analysesof writing-process classrooms, she documented a rangeof scripts that participants constituted locally and overtime: A script is defined by identifying recurring pat-terns of activity within and across events in a classroomthat members actions indicate are stable ways of engag-ing with others (p. 341). In these classrooms, recitative

scripts limited social interaction to enduring forms ofinitiation-response-evaluation (IRE), whereas teachersorganization ofresponsive scripts attended to studentsemerging contributions during literacy events, but rare-ly employed them deliberately in curriculum decisionmaking.

In comparison, responsive/collaborative scripts buildon and expand students meaning making, as thegoal of curriculum decision making is collaborativelydetermined between teachers and students through

8/8/2019 Pacheco (2010)

6/26


unanticipated questions, challenges, and interests.Here, I employ these categories as heuristic tools to de-scribe and analyze how classroom participation struc-tures (Au, 1980; Erickson & Schultz, 1997; Phillips,1972) facilitated collaborative teacherstudent dialoguethat expanded literacy learning opportunities.

Methods

Approach to the StudyDrawing on the work of Merriam (1998) and Yin (1989),Creswell (1994) explained that case studies involve aprocess by which

the researcher explores a single entity or phenomenon (the

case) bounded by time and activ ity (a program, event, pro-

cess, institution, or social group) and collects detailed in-

formation by using a variety of data collection procedures

during a sustained period of time. (p. 12)

The case in this study was reading activity, a dailypractice in bilingual classrooms that was negotiated bysocial actors across policy, district, school, and class-room contexts. At Pacific Elementary School, this casewas unique: (1) teachers in bilingual third-grade class-rooms transitioned ELLs from Spanish-only to English-only reading; (2) in 2000, this high-ELL, high-povertyschool was deemed successful by state criteria; and (3)the school still provided Spanish-language support forits high-ELL population despite the states English-only

mandate, Proposition 227.Thus, bilingual third-grade classrooms at thissuccessful school provided a unique opportunity todocument reading activity across languages, particu-larly because third grade is considered an importantpredictor of students future academic success (Pearson& Duke, 2002; Snow et al., 1998). Teachers deliveredlanguage arts in Spanish at the beginning of the schoolyear and switched to English-language instruction mid-year regardless of ELLs academic and English-speakingcapabilities. In this study, I collected data from fourbilingual third-grade classrooms but focused the pres-

ent analysis on two classrooms, those of Mrs. Nylundand Mr. Webber. I chose these focal classrooms be-cause, relative to their colleagues, these teachers orga-nized a representative continuum of reading practicesthat reflected the concern for improved test scores toavoid punitive NCLB measures. Finally, the schoolssuccess contradicted the perception that substantialprimary language support impedes English-languagedevelopment and equitable schooling for ELLs (Bennett,1985/1992; Porter, 1998, 2000).

Studying Classroom Reading ActivityI used ethnographic methods to study reading activ-ity in the bilingual third-grade classrooms during the20022003 school year (Marshall & Rossman, 1999;Maxwell, 1996; Merriam, 1998). Research questionsfocused on how teachers organized reading activityfor ELLs during both periods of Spanish- and English-

language instruction and, moreover, on the quality oflearning opportunities during the teaching and learn-ing of reading. I observed and videotaped language artsinstructional time blocks during the delivery of Spanishand English literacy to capture how teachers coordinat-ed reading activity for a complete unit, which on aver-age lasted between one and one-and-a-half weeks.

Across the four classrooms, teachers typically cov-ered one story from the district anthology for a weekconsistently across Spanish- and English-languageinstruction. At times, assemblies, computer lab vis-its, library visits, and holidays interrupted the schoolweek such that units either extended into the followingweek or were reduced by a day. Thus, I undertook par-ticipant observations for approximately two weeks perclassroom, at the beginning and end of the year whenteachers taught in Spanish and English, respectively.

Videotaping varied across classrooms, however, becausesome teachers felt comfortable being recorded whileothers did not. To be clear, I videotaped portions of lan-guage arts time blocks to supplement my participantobservations; these recordings resulted in, specifically,12 one-hour tapes, or 12 hours of video recordings. Icollected student work samples to examine whetherassignments revealed insights about the learning op-

portunities that teachers created through assigned lan-guage arts tasks.

The study of classroom reading activity was supple-mented with in-depth interviews of one to two hourseach with the four third-grade bilingual teachers toexamine their views about bilingual education and therole of primary language instruction and support, andtheir reading goals for ELLs. Additionally, I sought in-sights about teachers reading practices before the recentonset of English-only and testing pressures, particularlygiven their student demographics, and to determine,from their perspective, how the recent convergence of

educational policies had shifted their reading practices.

Examining Dialectical RelationshipsCultural-historical theoretical perspectives and methodsinformed an examination of the classrooms, school, dis-trict, local community, and accountability framework asa unique but dialectically constituted activity system, al-beit laden with contradictions (Cole, 1996; Engestrm,1986; Engestrm & Miettinen, 1999). In his elabora-tion of the dialectical relationship between individual

8/8/2019 Pacheco (2010)

7/26


activity and broader social contexts, Engestrm (1986)asserted,

Human activity is not only individual production. It is si-

multaneously and inseparably also social exchange and so-

cietal distribution. In other words, human activity always

takes place within a community governed by a certain divi-sion of labor and by certain rules. (pp. 2627)

Analyses of individual learning and development, then,require a serious consideration about the broader con-texts that do not merely surround individual activitybut instead weave together its defining tools, artifacts,roles, division of labor, relevant communities, and rules.

While macrolevel contexts (e.g., social institutions) pro-vide the constraints and resources that coordinate, or-ganize, and affect individual activity in particular ways,these contexts simultaneously yield the unique toolsand artifacts that individuals can potentially exploit to(re)produce or transform each idiosyncratic situation(Cole, 1996).

This study took up the notion that literacy activi-ties in classroom contexts are woven together acrossthe sociocultural and institutional contexts of PacificElementary School, the Alvarez School District, thelocal community, and the state reform landscape (seeGreen & Heras, in press). This approach required gain-ing entry into a range of social spaces and gaining ac-cess to a range of study participants. Thus, I initiallybecame a member of the school community throughmy three-month volunteer experience across grade lev-els, teachers, and languages of instruction during thesummer of 2002 to familiarize myself with staff, stu-

dents, and parents (researcher memos, June 15, 2002,September 2830, 2002, September 7, 2002, October5, 2002). This experience included my participation asa teacher assistant in the four bilingual classrooms thatwere part of the broader study. In the spirit of reciproc-ity, I also volunteered throughout the school year as areading intervention teacher for struggling readers atthe request of several teachers. My unique participationin the school community afforded an opportunity to as-certain the degree to which the reading practices I doc-umented in third-grade bilingual classrooms resembledthose I observed during my volunteer experiences.

To begin to weave together the effects of convergent

school accountability, reading, and language policieson everyday classroom practice (i.e., NCLB, ReadingFirst, and Proposition 227), I conducted participant ob-servations of staff meetings, grade-level meetings, andlunchroom staff dialogues, collected school and districtmemoranda, and conducted in-depth interviews withschool and district administrators. These methods alsocorresponded with a triangulation strategy to substan-tiate the perspectives of individuals across institution-al settings (i.e., students, distinct groups of teachers,

school administrators, district administrators, and com-munity members; see Table 1).

I conducted in-depth interviews of one to two hourseach with three Pacific administrators, two AlvarezDistrict administrators, three community volunteers,and the bilingual teacher charged with helping his col-leagues implement the new English-language develop-ment assessments. Specifically, I examined why theschool and district implemented policies in particularways and how these data illuminated the dialecticalrelationship between bilingual classroom reading prac-tices and the policy contextand how policies affectand were affected by local practice. Finally, I gatheredrelevant documents that might provide unique insightsinto how reading activity was negotiated across class-rooms, schools, and the district (e.g., professional devel-opment f lyers, staff meeting agendas, announcements).

The SchoolPacific Elementary School is located in the large sub-urb of Alvarez, California, and is home to a majorityworking-class populace of Mexican migrants and im-migrants, Mexican Americans, Chicanos, and Latinos,although recent gentrification has shifted these demo-graphics. Pacific reflected the citys ethnic composition:It had a student population of 870, which included aLatino majority from low-income and working-poorfamilies, and was one of 20 elementary schools in the

Alvarez School District. Specifically, 86% were Latino,4% were European American, and 10% were African

American, Asian American, Filipino, or other. That85% of these students qualified for free or reduced-cost

meals reflected the communitys low-socioeconomiccharacter. Pacific experienced a considerable amount ofstudent mobility (8%), and to accommodate these shifts,the school instituted a year-round, four-track schedulethat included 16 SpanishEnglish bilingual, 15 main-stream English, and nine English-immersion class-rooms. All bilingual teachers possessed a Californiabilingual teaching credential.

ELLs comprised 62% of the student body, and ap-proximately 53% of these ELLs participated in the tran-sitional bilingual program, or alternative languageprogram under the English-immersion provisions ofProposition 227. The program used mostly Spanish in

kindergarten through third grade and gradually incor-porated English content area instruction beginning inkindergarten with the teaching and learning of music,physical education, and art, then science, social stud-ies, and math by third grade. The program includedEnglish-language development periods, during whichELLs honed their oral English skills and emergentEnglish literacy by reciting poetry, reading short stories,singing songs, and performing short plays (researchermemos, June 15, 2002, September 2830, 2002; school

8/8/2019 Pacheco (2010)

8/26


principal, personal communication, February 21, 2003;learning director, personal communication, April 2122,2003). As mentioned earlier, third-grade bilingual teach-ers transitioned ELLs to English-only instruction mid-year. However, the district did not prescribe the amount,type, and use of Spanish and English across bilingualclassrooms, but in recent years, had reduced Spanish-language instruction by an academic year (school princi-pal, personal communication, February 21, 2003). Thus,K3 bilingual teachers used Spanish and English in vari-ous ways to accomplish distinct goals and used Spanishand English curriculum materials to varying degrees.

Data Analysis ProceduresThe data corpus consisted of 78 hours of in-class par-ticipant observations, 12 hours of transcribed v ideorecordings, and 14 transcribed interviews, as well asseven memos documenting insights and questions thatemerged from my participation at the school (see Table 1).

Typed field notes, typed researcher memos, tran-scribed video recordings, and transcribed interviewswere coded manually several times, consistent with thecultural-historical theoretical emphasis on the semi-otic mediation of student learning that occurs in andthrough everyday practices, which includes both mate-rial (e.g., books) and ideational (e.g., character analy-sis) tools and artifacts (Cole, 1996; Vygotsky, 1978;

Wertsch, 1991).First, I categorized the everyday language arts prac-

tices in individual bilingual classrooms, generatingdescriptive codes for the tasks, activities, and routinesdocumented during Spanish and English language artstime blocks at the beginning and end of the school year,respectively (see Table 2). Second, I sought to determinethe normative practices that constituted reading activ-ity in particularor the sociocultural organization ofELLs engagement with and around the texts teachersused. That is, in addition to describing how languagearts time blocks were routinely organized, my aim was

Classroom teacher

Field notes

Days of observation (total hours) Hours of video recordings Totalhours perclassroomSpanish English Spanish English

Mrs. Nylund 6 (11.5) 5 (10) 5 1 21.5

Mr. Ortiz 5 (7) 6 (10) 1 1 17.0

Ms. Palacios 7 (13) 5 (9) 1 2 22.0

Mr. Webber 7 (11.5) 4 (6) 1 0 17.5

Total 25 (43) 20 (35) 8 4 78.0

Classroom teacher Student work

All California standards tests, California Achievement Test (CAT/6), Spanish Assessment of Basic Education (SABE/2), andcopies of weekly plans from the teachers manual (S-E) that accompanied the district language arts program adoption

Mrs. Nylund Weekly spelling packet (S-E), spelling and dictation tests (S-E), writing samples (S), and reading and grammarworksheets (E)

Mr. Ortiz Writing samples (S) and reading and grammar worksheets (E)

Ms. Palacios Weekly spelling packet (S) and reading and grammar worksheets (E)

Mr. Webber Writing samples (S-E) and reading and grammar worksheets (S-E)

Interviews Additional data

Bilingual teacher focus group 1 Researcher memos 7

Bilingual teachers 5 Staff meetings (participant observations) 3 days (4 hours)

School administrators 3 Staff meeting agendas (document analysis) 19

District administrators 2

Community members 3

Total 14

Table 1. Data Sources

Note. Classroom teacher names are pseudonyms. The days of observation include the hours of video recordings. E = English; S = Spanish;S-E = SpanishEnglish.

8/8/2019 Pacheco (2010)

9/26


(e.g., the forms of assistance, use of students culturalknowledge, meaning-making emphases, shifts in ex-pert and novice roles; Gutirrez Baquedano-Lpez et al,1999; Rogoff, 1994). At the same time, I drew on my on-going analysis during data collection of individual stu-dents identified with varied reading achievement levels(i.e., low, middle, high) to analyze if and how their ex-periences differed from those of their peers.

In my analysis, I combined data from both theSpanish- and English-curriculum periods, becauseaccording to bilingual teachers, reading goals did notchange across languages as long as they emphasizedreading skills and comprehension, which would helptheir ELLs transition to English reading (field notes,October 22, 2002, October 2831, 2002, November67, 2002, November 1214, 2002, November 2022,2002). For example, when I asked a teacher if readinggroups changed from Spanish to English instruction,Mrs. Nylund stated, No, there wasntactually, therewas not (personal communication, June 23, 2003).

Across languages and classrooms, discussions were wellrepresented, and this initial observation informed thetype of analyses I later present in this article. Duringsmall-group and whole-class discussions, bilingualteachers typically centered their talk and interaction onsome response to or analysis of text. Typically, they last-ed between 20 and 30 minutes several times per week,during which teachers selected students to read specificpassages aloud and immediately thereafter asked sum-mary questions about the passages most recently read.

All documents were uploaded into NVivo 2 qual-itative research and data analysis software (QSR

International, 2002) and coded using program tools inaccordance with the analytic codes I had initially gen-erated manually, which were then used to determinethe differences, consistencies, and relationships be-tween the teaching and learning practices that teach-ers organized during Spanish and English language artsinstructional time blocks. NVivo 2 enabled me to con-struct the various tables and figures presented in thisarticle, as the program facilitates the easy retrieval ofcodes to generate particular themes and patterns withinand across bilingual classrooms and bilingual teachers.This retrieval also allowed me to count instances, prac-tices, and events, which I then transferred to a Microsoft

Excel spreadsheet; I then used Excel tools to create ta-bles and figures that represented raw numbers or per-centages of the raw data provided.

Finally, based on participant interviews, I examinedhow institutional (i.e., state, district, school, classrooms)beliefs and practices influenced teachers alignment ormisalignment with policy interpretations across the con-texts that wove together reading activity for ELLs. Initialcoding of 10 in-depth interviews with teachers and ad-ministrative personnel were undertaken to distinguish

Code

Instances per classroom

Mrs. Nylund Mr. Webber

Assessment (E) 0 1

Assessment (S) 0 0

Computer lab (S) 1 2

Current events (S) 1 3

Daily oral language (E) 5 0

Daily oral language (S) 6 1

Free time (E) 2 0

Free time (S) 1 0

Grammar (E) 2 0

Grammar (S) 1 1

Handwriting (E) 3 0

Journal (E) 1 0

Journal (S) 5 2

Morning routine (E) 4 0

Morning routine (S) 1 4

Reading practice (E) 4 15

Reading practice (S) 21 10

Spelling (E) 3 0

Spelling (S) 2 5

Spelling and dictation (E) 2 0

Test preparation (E) 1 1

Vocabulary (E) 2 0

Vocabulary (S) 4 4

Table 2. Data Analysis Codes of Language Arts Activities

Note. Classroom teacher names are pseudonyms. E = English; S = Spanish;

S-E = SpanishEnglish.

to generate a typology about how particular ways withtexts constituted local notions of reading and readingachievement. Third, I used analytic coding to examineclosely the reading practices that involved engagementinto, through, and beyond texts, including strategies,extension activities, and workbook tasks.

Finally, further in-depth coding examined themeditational tools and artifacts that teachers used toorganize reading activity, but I also drew on conceptualcategories to analyze the affordances, consequences, andoutcomes related to the practices that constituted read-ing activity. Specifically, I examined the use of Spanish-and English-language instruction and the teaching ofphonics, phonemic awareness, spelling, vocabulary, an-alytical, and critical thinking skills, discourse practices,participation structures (Au, 1980; Erickson & Schultz,1997; Phillips, 1972), and interactional patterns. I alsoanalyzed the range of ELLs sense-making opportunities

8/8/2019 Pacheco (2010)

10/26


the extent to which bilingual classroom reading activ-ity aligned with ways the school and district interpretedand implemented practices related to Proposition 227,school accountability, and reading policy. Subsequentcoding examined the specific aspects of the current re-form context that affected how the school and districtoriented its local practices and procedures, goals andobjectives, and the particular views that informed theselocal instantiationswhich ones persisted, which oneswere abandoned, and which ones were adapted.

Analyzing a Continuumof Reading Activity

As mentioned earlier, this article focuses on two class-roomsthose of Mrs. Nylund and Mr. Webbersincethey reflected a continuum of reading activity, whichallowed for an analytic zooming in on socioculturalpractice. These analyses were based on 21.5 hours ofparticipant observations (including 6 hours of video)

across 11 days in Mrs. Nylunds bilingual classroomand 17.5 hours of participant observations (including 1hour of video) across 11 days in Mr. Webbers bilingualclassroom (see Table 1). The discrepancy in participantobservation hours (including video) is attributable to thetendency that Mrs. Nylund had a more fixed languagearts block schedule, whereas Mr. Webber sometimesimplemented language arts before or after the morningrecess. Thus, Mr. Webber dedicated comparably lesstime to language arts activity.

In my analysis of these two classrooms, the cat-egorization of scr ipts (Gutirrez, 1993), in particular,helped typifynot explain causallythe microgeneticstructures of participation and discourse. These scriptcategories provided the heuristic tools to analyze thediscursive terrain that afforded ELLs with particular op-portunities for the type of intellectual engagement thatstudents need across their academic trajectories. In linewith Gutirrezs designation of patterns of language useand orientations that characterize recitative, responsive,and responsive/collaborative scripts, I recoded readingpractices in Mrs. Nylunds and Mr. Webbers classroomsto capture differences and similarities across scripts thatafforded or constrained meaning-making opportunities.

To substantiate the data analysis presented in this

article, I used these numerous analyses to constructcharts representing reading practices (Figure 2), discus-sion themes teachers covered (Figure 3), and teachersorganization of scripts (Figure 4). Specifically, I selectedtwo representative reading practices in the form of nar-rative extracts and transcripts of classroom discourse(i.e., a story preview and character analysis) to examinethe microgenetic construction of students meaning-making opportunities. I reconstructed these narra-tive extracts from field notes taken during participant

observations in bilingual classrooms when v ideo re-cordings of the events were not available. Additionally, Iobtained transcripts of classroom discourses from eitherdetailed field notes or transcriptions of video recordingsof language arts instructional blocks. The goal was notto compare teachers but to analyze how the instantia-tion of reading activity affected ELLs meaning-makingopportunities.

I turn now to a discussion of the findings, whichbegin with a description of how social actors negotiatedpolicy mandates and instantiated particular notions ofwhat counts as reading.

Findings

Making Sense of Policy at PacificElementary SchoolThis section discusses how convergent educational re-

forms were interpreted and implemented locally andhow these reforms served as resources for particularactions, or constrained them. Although Proposition227 and the English-only reading approaches promot-ed through NCLB significantly diminished programsthat used students primary languages, some districtswith substantial numbers of ELLs, like Alvarez SchoolDistrict, maintained their bilingual programs and pro-vision of primary language support. At Pacific, teach-ers and administrators strongly supported the districtsEnglishSpanish bilingual programs, despite the dis-mantling of bilingual programs occurring around themand across the state (bilingual teacher focus group,February 11, 2002; school principal, personal com-munication, February 21, 2003, April 2122, 2003;migrant education specialist, personal communication,May 1, 2003).

At the same time, however, the reductive notionsof English literacy implied in policies, standardized as-sessments, and curriculum adoptions informed teach-ers and administrators narrow expectations of success.

Across participant observations and formal and in-formal interviews, practitioners identified success inEnglish as the primary goal of their transitional bilin-gual program so that [ELLs] achieve as well as anybody

whos in any program (bilingual teacher focus group,February 11, 2002). Thus, teachers and administra-tors defined success partly by how well the schoolsbilingual program and its bilingual teachers facilitatedEnglish literacy for its large ELL population. Of rel-evance, third-grade teachers added that reading com-prehension, broadly defined, in English and Spanishwas the most important indicator of success and alsoclaimed that it was the one area where most of them[ELLs] need the most work (personal communication,

8/8/2019 Pacheco (2010)

11/26


April 21, 2003, June 23, 2003, July 8, 2003; district staffdevelopment manager, personal communication, April21, 2003).

Moreover, the accountability framework guided theapproaches, strategies, modifications, and practices thatteachers and administrators adopted to mitigate ELLsachievement. For example, teachers believed that beingdata driven partly explained their ranking as a high-achieving school, since these data helped delineate theskills they needed to reinforce in their language artscurriculum. Thus, they relied on standardized test scoredata to inform their teaching and learning practices,which a second-grade bilingual teacher explained:

One thing that was really helpful was when we would ana-

lyze the test scores from the year before and see the secondgraders on the whole. What were the diff icult parts? Whatdid they all not do well in? Then, [teachers] would really get

together and plan activities to really work on those areas,like vocabulary or rhyming words or whatever it was. (bilin-gual teacher focus group, February 11, 2002)

Bilingual teachers used standardized literacy andlanguage assessments to both determine how well theircurrent language arts practices prepared ELLs to dem-onstrate a particular skill set and make subsequent de-cisions about modifications to their classroom practicesrelated to the teaching and learning of reading. Thesedecisions also drove the collaboration and curriculumplanning in which bilingual teachers within and acrossgrade levels participated. Of importance, school ad-ministrators organized and facilitated these practices.During one staff meeting, for example, the learning di-rector reminded teachers that they would get kickedin the butt if test scores did not improve (field notes,staff meeting, March 3, 2003). Oftentimes, this dataanalysis drove staff development meetings, and whileadministrators at times lamented these unfair assess-ments (Mr. Webber, personal communication, April2122, 2003), the districts professional developmentexacerbated these reform-driven approaches.

The district explicitly sought continuity and coher-ence across the battery of state and district assessments,curriculum programs, and state standards, accordingto the manager for staff development, Ms. Knight (per-sonal communication, June 27, 2003). At the time of

the study, the district had begun implementing RealReading Solutions (pseudonym), a recently adoptedsupplemental reading assessment program consideredby participants to be a uniquely comprehensive model ofwhat literacy looks like. According to Ms. Knight, thethree-pronged approach of these teacher-driven, teacher-developed assessments facilitated teacher collaboration,provided useful data, and emphasized a valuable skill set:

[Real Reading Solutions] is built on three pillars. First ofall that teachers collaborate and they speak at grade levels

about what literacy looks like. [Second], they have data col-

lection when the teachers give these assessments. What

does [the test] say? This will give a true picture of who the

students are. And [third], they work with phonemic aware-

ness, fluency, accuracyall the components of reading. No

matter what grade level you teach, you still are a teacher

of reading. (Ms. Knight, personal communication, June 27,

2003)

This instrument guided the districts professionaldevelopment efforts, because it provided tangible in-dicators that could then guide teachers collaborativework around ways to modify their teaching and learn-ing practices in the area of reading. Even though Ms.Knight believed testing provided only a snapshotof students learning, she nevertheless believed RealReading Solutions was consistent with the current ac-countability framework and provided a true picture(personal communication, June 27, 2003) of the specificskills that teachers needed to hone and improve, par-ticularly for ELLs.

The districts assessment-driven orientation sub-stantiated the narrow definitions of reading implied inconvergent educational reforms, as teachers and admin-istrators evaluated, modified, and shifted their goalsand practices in accordance with the policy landscape.Moreover, participant observations at staff meetings,grade-level meetings, lunchroom dialogues, informal in-teractions with teachers, school and district memoranda,and in-depth interviews revealed that assessmentsrather than bilingual teachers knowledge of their stu-dents, curriculum, and literacy learning across twolanguagesdrove future actions. In sum, reading activ-

ity in bilingual classrooms was interwoven with the ten-sions that teachers and administrators experience giventhe increasingly contradictory schooling circumstancesfor ELLs. Teachers and administrators struggled withthe punitive imposition of state standards, privilegingof test scores, diminishing worth of ELLs primary lan-guages, and state and federal funding practices, but rec-onciled these contradictions in their narrow, reductivegoals of improved English test scores by which they andtheir ELLs were evaluated.

Shifts in Teaching: More Pressure,

More English, More SkillsIn third-grade bilingual classrooms in which ELLs be-gan their transition to English reading, a privileging ofthe skills relative to assessment programs emphasizedteacher-driven discourses that honed decoding andnarrow comprehension-based practices. Specifically,the two bilingual teachers on which I focus in this pa-per, Mrs. Nylund and Mr. Webber, expressed that thecurrent accountability frameworkparticularly high-stakes assessment and standards-driven curriculum

8/8/2019 Pacheco (2010)

12/26


programshave significantly affected their increaseduse of English and skill-based approaches. While I fo-cus on these two bilingual teachers here, they reflectedthe views and perspectives of their third-grade bilingualcolleagues in formal, in-depth interviews and informaldiscussions (Pacheco, 2005). In essence, Mrs. Nylundand Mr. Webber explained that the recent English-only accountability framework had increased English,decreased Spanish, provoked entertaining strategiesthat made learning fun (Mr. Webber, personal com-munication, April 21, 2003), increased skills-basedapproaches, decreased enrichment activities, focusedinstructional goals, fostered higher expectations, andlimited their school days to reading, writing, and math(personal communications, April 21, 2003, June 23,2003).

In her formal interview, Mrs. Nylund believed theaccountability framework promoted skills-based read-ing strategies, assessment-driven instruction, and high-er expectations and overemphasized reading, writing,

and math at the expense of enrichment activities (e.g.,art, music, physical education). Regarding the teachingand learning of reading, she stated,

During the most recent years, there has been such an

emphasis on teaching to the standards, on preparing the

children to do well on the standardized tests, that I have

become much more focused on teaching skills, particularly

the skills that we know are going to be tested. (personal

communication, June 23, 2003)

While her teaching had become standards- andassessment-driven, Mrs. Nylund also acknowledged

that skills-based approaches to reading had dimin-ished whole-language and literature-based approaches.Across her 24 years of teaching experience, she hadcome to understand that a balanced approach is thebest way to teach reading (personal communication,

June 23, 2003)for mainstream students and ELLs. Still,she believed that teachers are caught in the middle, be-cause the materials...are obviously focused in whateverdirection the pendulum is swinging, and teachers areexpected to promote what the state wants.At the sametime, however, she recognized that standards...haveforced [teachers] to raise our expectations and thatELLs have consequently demonstrated higher achieve-

ment. While Mrs. Nylunds extensive teaching experi-ence had informed her belief that a balanced readingapproach was most effective, she also believed that theadvent of skills-based standards and accountability hadforced her to raise her expectations of ELLs and be amore focusedteacher.

On the other hand, Mr. Webber explained that priorto the accountability framework, his teaching was dis-integrated (personal communication, April 21, 2003),relied on more Spanish-language support for ELLs, and

helped him organize his teaching in a way that was ac-cessible for his students. For him, the good side ofhigh-stakes accountability was the increased pressureon me to [have] a curriculum map, a long-range plan,as I definitely feel that in some ways I have a disinte-grated teaching style. He also elaborated that sinceeverybodys pushing for English, maybe I should goall the way and write instructions in English [and] cutback on explanations in Spanish. However, he also es-poused efforts to teach to the average student, evenbefore the accountability framework started influencinghis practice:

Every year I know a little bit more about what the average

student can do, especially in terms of behavior. Thats al-

ways been key, but generally the range falls into that bell-

shaped curve. Once you learn that students can get twodefinitions written down in only five minutes before the bell

rings, then you never lower that standard. (personal com-

munication, April 21, 2003)

Thus, while Mr. Webber openly criticized English-language testing as useless and too hard, the ac-countability framework affected his ability to pacethe class and be more entertaining by regularly usingthe overhead projector and incorporating more currentevents (personal communication, April 21, 2003).

In the following sections, I demonstrate how the ac-countability framework inf luenced Mr. Webbers andMrs. Nylunds organization of reading activity in theirbilingual third-grade classrooms, then examine howthe discursive constitution of these practices expandedor constrained ELLs meaning making around texts.

Specifically, I draw on classroom narrative extracts andtranscripts of discourse to analyze how teachers media-tion of reading afforded learning opportunities for ELLs.

Reading Practicesin Bilingual ClassroomsTo examine how the current accountability frameworkinformed the organization of reading activity, I firstdescribe the social practices that reflected particularnotions about what counts as reading in the bilingualclassrooms of Mrs. Nylund and Mr. Webber. Figure 2

represents the reading practices documented duringfour weeks of participant observations across Spanishand English language arts instruction that involvedteacher-selected texts in these two classrooms.

These practices reveal an important finding. Throughthe lens of these two classrooms, it is evident that ELLsparticipated overwhelmingly in interpretation-baseddiscussions that were grounded in textual evidence,as this focus comprised slightly over 60% of docu-mented reading practices (see Figure 2). Furthermore,

8/8/2019 Pacheco (2010)

13/26


this day-to-day landscape of reading practices illus-trates that these bilingual teachers organized a range ofpractices to promote reading comprehension (broadlydefined) and extend students conceptual understand-ings. To engage students in preliminary text analysis,teachers organized story previews, picture walks, anddecoding strategies for making predictions and draw-ing inferences from illustrations, headings, and genres.

To promote reading comprehension, teachers facilitatedmany small- and whole-group discussions on a regularbasis to monitor and encourage students comprehen-sion of the different genres they used during languagearts, typically narratives (field notes, October 22, 2002,October 2831, 2002, November 67, 2002; November1214, 2002, November 2022, 2002, March 9, 2003,March 1114, 2003, June 1619, 2003; video record-ings, October 10, 2002, October 17, 2002, November8, 2002, November 22, 2002, March 5, 2003, March1013, 2003, April 1, 2003).

Some discussions occasionally revolved around

supplemental texts, such as newspaper articles. For ex-ample, Mr. Webber sometimes selected Los Angeles Timesarticles as a focal text at the beginning of the school dayto facilitate a discussion. Although he did not read thearticles verbatim, he used them to foster ELLs compre-hension, as this field note excerpt illustrates:

Showing a front-page photograph of a tanker that spilled

oil into the coastline of northwestern Spain, Mr. Webber

began, This is what it looks like when older people make

mistakes.... What do you think is contained in these oil

tankers? He instructed students to think about it and share

their thoughts with a neighbor for 15 seconds.

He then asked for ideas, and Ramon said, Gas?

Mr. Webber replied, Youre close, youre so close.

Debbi uttered, Smoke?

Mr. Webber wrote, tanker = gas and petrleo [petro-

leum] on the dry-erase board.

He turned back to Debbi and asked, Would we fill up

a tanker with smoke and ship it across the ocean? Would

your mom say, Debs, look, I got this great price on smoketoday?

No one answered, but Sara finally guessed, Oil?

Mr. Webber then proceeded to explain that oil tankers

transport oil we need for gasoline and sometimes cause en-

vironmental catastrophes. (field notes, November 20, 2002)

Although this news story did not parallel the weeksreading unit, this example illustrates Mr. Webbers ten-dency to engage ELLs in discussions that emphasizedthe relevancy of current events to students lives (i.e.,the effects of oil tanker disasters on the environment).Moreover, the open-ended use of current events as

reading texts provided unique learning opportunitiesfor students to explore less structured forms of knowl-edge construction.

To extend the meanings of texts, Mr. Webber andMrs. Nylund facilitated activities that required studentsto apply these meanings to another situation or context.For example, Mr. Webber facilitated his students ap-propriation of reading content in their reenactment of astory in their anthology, which required them to moni-tor the accurate chronology of the storys major events

Figure 2. Reading Practices of Two Bilingual Third-Grade Teachers

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%Workbook Story Picture walk Partner Informal talk Extension Discussion

preview reading activities

Mr. Webber

Mrs. Nylund2 4 2 4

19

310

38

43

8/8/2019 Pacheco (2010)

14/26


(field notes, October 22, 2010). Finally, Figure 2 revealssome relative tendencies across these two classrooms.Mrs. Nylund typically organized the majority of small-and whole-group discussions, reading strategies, pic-ture walks, and previews. Mr. Webber organized andfacilitated a wider range of practices, such as extensionactivities, informal conversations, and partner read-alouds, but fewer discussions relative to Mrs. Nylund.Student work was particularly helpful in substantiatingthese differences. Mrs. Nylund tended to assign morewriting tasks requiring students to relate themselvesto a text (e.g., retelling an experience from a charac-ters viewpoint), whereas worksheet assignments (e.g.,fill-in-the-blank) were more visible in Mr. Webbersclassroom.

Discussion ThemesWhile Figure 2 provides a landscape of day-to-day

reading practices, closer analyses of predominant dis-cussions reveal that they provided distinct opportuni-ties for ELLs to acquire and appropriate ways to thinkand talk about texts. Figure 3 represents the ways Mrs.Nylund and Mr. Webber coordinated their talk, ques-tions, and responses around particular themes withstudents, and ways they facilitated particular modes ofengagement with texts.

The data in Figure 3 illustrate that while discus-sions were well represented in Mr. Webbers and Mrs.Nylunds classrooms, these discussions afforded distinct

opportunities for ELLs and their teachers to engage ina broad range of skills and dispositions. Thematically,the discussions explored vocabulary development,summarizing texts, taking the perspective of subjectpositions (e.g., being a king), and reading strategicallyduring group discussions, including the routine storypreviews and character analyses I explore in a later sec-tion. During the discussions I coded as general, theteachers concentrated on author biographies, illustra-tions, and story length, for example. Even across themore than four weeks of participant observations inthese two classrooms, reading practices in general anddiscussions in particular provided a range of languageand literacy learning opportunities.

Moreover, Figure 3 reveals that Mrs. Nylund shareda substantial amount of these interpretation-based dis-cussions and facilitated meaning-making opportuni-ties through a much wider range of topics, themes, andstrategies. At the same time, she tended to minimizeher thematic focus on vocabulary development and

personal connections, whereas Mr. Webber organizedthese themes in his reading discussions. Specifically,he favored tasks in which students located and defineddifficult words and concepts that students encounteredin classroom texts and on occasion encouraged ELLsto draw personal connections between themselves andstory characters (e.g., How would you feel?). For ex-ample, one of the ongoing discussions that Mr. Webberorganized to engage students in the folk tale for theweek, Nine-in-One, Grr! Grr! A Folktale From the HmongPeople of Laos (Xiong & Spagnoli, 1989), was about the

Figure 3. Discussion Themes in Two Bilingual Third-Grade Classrooms

Characters

General

Inferences

Opinions

Personal connections

Perspective-taking

Predictions

Reading strategy

Summaries

Vocabulary

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Mrs. Nylund

Mr. Webber

4

4

5

1

1

9

3

8

8

111

3

1

2

1

8/8/2019 Pacheco (2010)

15/26


word folk tale, as documented in this short field noteexcerpt:

Mr. Webber reviewed the meaning offolk tale and asked the

class to write the definition in their diarios [journals]. He

asked Sofia and Sara to distribute student dictionaries as he

wrotefolk tale on the dry-erase boardand asked the class to

illustrate the word after writing the definition. (field notes,

June 17, 2003)

During whole-group discussions around this particularstory, he reviewed relevant vocabulary, facilitated tasksthat honed limited amounts of information and knowl-edge (i.e., the definition of folk tale), and relied on out-side sources of information (i.e., dictionaries).

I turn now to a close examination of two particulardiscussion themes that these two bilingual teachers co-ordinated during language arts instruction to explorelater how local interpretations of what counts as readingacross institutional contexts informed classroom prac-ticesand how classroom practices in turn sustainedsuch interpretations.

Zooming In: Teachers SocialOrganization of Reading ActivityIn this section, I analyze reading practices to highlightELLs opportunities to acquire and appropriate the me-diational means to participate successfully in teacherssociocultural organization of reading activity. Teachersafforded these opportunities through the social or-ganization of scripts (Gutirrez, 1993) of the forms of

recitative, responsive, and responsive/collaborative dis-courses that characterize normative patterns of partici-pation. To be clear, in using Gutirrezs elaboration ofthese scripts, I sought to capture the patterned socio-cultural features that extended meaning-making oppor-tunities for ELLs at a time when their home languageswere being increasingly diminished, and broad notionsabout what counts as reading were shifting across state,district, and school contexts.

Figure 4 represents the scripts that Mrs. Nylundand Mr. Webber facilitated through everyday readingpractices with respect to the discussions they organizedin their classrooms (field notes, October 22, 2002,October 2831, 2002, November 67, 2002, November1214, 2002, November 2022, 2002, March 9, 2003,March 1114, 2003, June 1619, 2003; video record-ings, October 10, 2002, October 17, 2002, November8, 2002, November 22, 2002, March 5, 2003, March1013, 2003, April 1, 2003). To construct Figure 4, I re-coded the practices that comprised interpretation-based

discussions in the earlier section (see Figure 3) in ac-cordance with those socioculturally mediated practicesthat facilitated de/coding, reading comprehension, andextension activities (103 instances).

I classified these practices according to these cat-egories to demarcate, for analytic purposes, the distinc-tion between practices that promoted the de/coding oftexts, the interpretation of texts, and the extension ac-tivities requiring ELLs to extend the meanings of texts.Typically, these extension activities solicited a textsmain idea(s), central theme(s), and conflict resolution(s).

Figure 4. Organization of Scripts by Two Bilingual Third-Grade Teachers

Responsive/collaborative

Responsive

RecitativeMr. Webber

Responsive/collaborative

Responsive

RecitativeMrs. Nylund

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

De/coding practices(vocabulary, textfeatures)

Comprehension-based practices(character analysis,making connections,

inferences, predictions,summarizing, strategicreading)

Extension activities(opinions, prespectivetaking)

1

1

1

5 22 9

6

3

10 6 1

8/8/2019 Pacheco (2010)

16/26


Based on these classif ications, I then conducted a morein-depth analysis of the discourse patterns that teachersand students coconstructed to organize said activitiesand tasks, examining those sociocultural strategies andtools that the teachers and students jointly made avail-able and took up during discussions.

The data in Figure 4 show that comprehension-based discussions were a predominant practice inthese two classrooms and, relatively speaking, thatMrs. Nylund organized extension activities whereasMr. Webber organized de/coding activities. Of greaterimportance, in-depth data analyses illustrate that Mrs.Nylund tended to coordinate responsive scripts in herclassroom, providing in a broad sense flexible oppor-tunities to participate in and contribute to collectivemeaning making. Mr. Webbers skills-based de/codingpractices coincided with his coordination of recitativeknown-answer scripts, but he also used recitation tomediate comprehension-based practices. That is, par-ticipation structures in his classroom changed very little

when classroom activity changed (e.g., from worksheetto joint discussion). Thus, although comprehension-based practices were well represented in these twoclassrooms, how the teachers organized readingactivitythrough particular topics, participation struc-tures, orientations, and discoursescreated distinctopportunities and contexts for ELLs to participate morefully in the coconstruction of meaning making.

In the following sections, I examine further the ef-fects of the English-only, reform-driven context on themicrogenetic coconstruction of reading activity. I ana-lyze two representative, comprehension-based practices

that both Mrs. Nylund and Mr. Webber coordinated intheir classrooms: story previews and character analysis.The goal is to show how teachers socioculturally medi-ated sense making for ELLs and, specifically, the waysthe teachers deliberately exploited students emergingcontributions and attempts at sense making.

Story Previews: Teachers Facilitationof Background KnowledgeIn this section, I analyze story previews to examine howteachers facilitated students background knowledge, asthese previews allowed students to exploit their per-

sonal experiences and cultural resources about relevantconcepts in the service of text interpretation. Story pre-views were rather typical events that teachers organizedto introduce the new story for the week, which generallyoccurred on Monday mornings during the language artsblock. In these classrooms, these events were generallymarked by the distribution of basal readers or individ-ual books, a review of illustrations, a definition of thegenre in question (e.g., folk tales), a review of key vo-cabulary, and a series of predictions based on an initial

overview of the text. They generally ended when theteacher requested that students read a particular passageand transitioned the group into more interpretation-based talk.

Story previews were particularly essential, as theyprovided teachers the opportunity to introduce, ex-plain, elaborate, or review key information that mightenhance students interpretations; simultaneously, thesepreviews allowed students to express their musings,make guesses about upcoming story events, and drawon their current knowledge base in a relatively risk-free context. I coded story previews as comprehension-based practices precisely because during these activities,teachers typically encouraged students to consider howtitles, illustrations, and concepts might come togetherin a story before actually reading it. Next, I analyze astory preview narrative extract from Mrs. Nylundsclassroom and a transcript of classroom discourse fromMr. Webbers classroom to il lustrate how the coordina-tion of the story preview, not the story preview per se,

affected students meaning-making opportunities.Narrative Extract 1 describes Mrs. Nylunds orga-

nization of an activity related to previewing Dos hor-migas traviesas[Two Bad Ants] (Van Allsburg, 1988),which narrates the adventures of two mischievous antsthat stray off an ant trail into an empty nearby house.Thus, the illustrations accordingly represent the worldfrom an ants point of view. Once the classroom helpersdistributed anthologies to every student, Mrs. Nylandinstructed the class to turn to page 100.

Narrative Extract 1: With Other Eyes

Mrs. Nylund asked students to read the new unit title: Con

otros ojos [With Other Eyes]. She continued, Why do you

think these stories are in here?

Students flipped through their anthology, and after a

long pause, Ramon said, Because you have to see the pic-

tures differently?

Mrs. Nylund then asked students to participate in an ac-

tivity, but reminded them to not be silly, explaining that

they will use a lupa [magnifying glass] to look at different

classroom items, and encouraged them to get out of their

seats to do it. Once students received a lupa, they got on the

floor, squatted, and lay on their backs to look at the carpet,

baskets, their arms, their desks, the classroom door, and

the ceiling.

Mrs. Nylund interjected, OK, I want you to look at theceiling, look at the windows, look at the jack-o-lantern bul-

letin board, look at the calendar. After several minutes, she

asked students to share how things looked through the lupa.

Jaime commented, It looks pretty far to get from here

[ground] to there [ceiling] for an ant.

Mrs. Nylund requested that students return to their

seats and imagine that they were birds flying over Pacific

Elementary School: Close your eyes and use your imagina-

tion.... What does the school look like?... What do the chil-

dren in the playground look like?

8/8/2019 Pacheco (2010)

17/26


One student commented, It [the school] would look like

the Twin Towers.

Mrs. Nylund asked the class to do a one-minute picture

walk, and students began to thumb through their antholo-

gies quietly. (field notes, October 28, 2002)

In this particular story preview event, Mrs. Nylundorganized a range of mediational means to help stu-

dents understand conceptually the abstract notion ofseeing from our own and others perspectives, whichwas central to comprehending the text. Through thestrategic use of a magnifying glass to see differently, textillustrations, and the familiarity of the classroom, shefacilitated the notion of seeing the familiar from dis-tinct perspectives, particularly as an ant. She facilitatedthis experiential approach by encouraging students toexamine a range of objects from various angles, andwith open-ended questions that allowed them to drawon their cultural knowledge in the service of meaningmaking (e.g., the Twin Towers). Of import, the story

preview was an opportunity for ELLs to engage in sensemaking in a way that deliberately employed their expe-riential and cultural knowledge. Finally, Mrs. Nylundmade explicit how particular genres coalesce themati-cally and made explicit the conceptual understanding(i.e., seeing with other eyes) needed to participate insubsequent comprehension-based discussions.

Mr. Webber similarly used the story preview to fa-cilitate the background knowledge his ELLs might needto fully comprehend the main ideas and central themesrelated to the new story for the week. Discussion 1 cap-tures the discourses he coordinated during a Mondaymorning preview ofNine-in-One, Grr! Grr! A Folktale

From the Hmong People of Laos (Xiong & Spagnoli, 1989).This Hmong folk tale centers on how a clever bird kepttigers from overpopulating and hence exploiting theland so that all animals could thrive in it. This was thefirst time the class had encountered this particular folktale.

Discussion 1: A Laotian Folk Tale

Mr. Webber: This week were going to be reading a

new story about felines, Nine-in-One, Grr!Grr! [wrote felines, then drew two arrows to

cats and tigers] These animals belong to

the family of felines. Does anybody know

what family dogs belong to? [pause] Talkwith your partner.

[Most students turned to talk with a nearby peer. In the

meantime, Mr. Webber retrieved a container of tongue de-

pressors with student names written on them.]

Mr. Webber: [drawing a tongue depressor] Perlita?

Perlita: Coyotes?

Mr. Webber: Olivia?

Olivia: Canines?

Mr. Webber: Thats right. And cats belong to the feline

family. And why do you think cats lick

their fur?

Daniel: To clean themselves.

Mr. Webber: Lets check that answer. Could it be to

take off their fleas? [simulated pulling fleas

from his body] Victoria?

Victoria: To take off their fleas?Mr. Webber: So, this week we ll be reading a story

about felines. Its a story from Laos.

Here, let me show you. [ pulling a roll-

down world map] Lets see... Okay, heres

Laos. [wrote Laos on dry-erase board]

Its surrounded by all these countries:

Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, China.

Theyre all located in Southeast Asia.

[wrote Southeast Asia on dry-erase board]

This is the continent where all of these

countries are located. [wrote place where

Laos is located on dry-erase board] Take

out your journals. I want you to writethis down.

[Students retrieved journals from their desk and began

writing.]

Mr. Webber: So, what continent is Laos in? Can any-

body remember? Weve talked about this

several t imes now. You should remember

what continent this is.

Lino: America?

Mr. Webber: Not quite.

Sofia: Asia?

Mr. Webber: Thats right. And [pause] is China bigger

than the United States?

Students: [in unison] Yesss...

Mr. Webber: [nodding] You know, China has the larg-

est population of people in the world. So,

Laos is very close to China, and Laotians

speak Hmong. [wrote they speak Hmong

on dry-erase board] How do you pro-

nounce this [pointing to Hmong]?

Sofia: Ha-mong?

Sara: Hmong?

Mr. Webber: Yeah...tomorrow Im gonna ask you. Who

remembers the name of the country?Perlita: Laos.

Mr. Webber: Okay, take out your books.

(field notes, June 16, 2003)

This discussion illustrates that story previews in Mr.Webbers classroom were organized around skills anddiscrete pieces of content knowledge and did not em-phasize the relationship between the topics and themesaddressed in the story. In particular, he initiated ways

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

8/8/2019 Pacheco (2010)

18/26


to engage in the text as he prompted questions aboutcanines (lines 514), animal behavior (lines 1522),thelocation of Laos (lines 2447), facts about China (lines4652), and pronunciation (lines 5358). The specificskills this preview promoted were correct pronuncia-tion (i.e., Hmong in lines 5256), copying (lines 3437),and information recall (lines 516, 3949, and 5759).The content knowledge that Mr. Webber provided cen-tered on knowledge about species classification (lines324), knowledge about distinct regions of the world(Southeast Asia in lines 2530 and 3947), and uniquefacts about specific countries (Laos in lines 2431, 3945, and 5159; China in lines 29 and 4651).

At the same time, he broadened ELLs exposure toworldly knowledge through an emphasis on facts re-lated to animal science, geography, cultural differences,and non-English languages. In this preview, moreover,he made available unique opportunities for students tomake connections between previously acquired knowl-edge, as it was quite possible that they had some pri-

or knowledge about dogs, cats, Laos, the Hmong, thecontinents, and China that they might have recalled inthis context. He also used a range of mediational tools,including the dry-erase board, student journals, andthe world mapa staple of Pacific Elementary Schoolclassrooms, although few teachers appeared to use it.Finally, he indexed a range of purposes for the knowl-edge being discussed: journal writing (lines 3438), anacademic obligation (Weve talked about this.... Youshould remember in lines 3942), and preparationfor future discussions (tomorrow Im gonna ask youin line 57). Furthermore, this transcript illustrates therecitative scripts that Mr. Webber tended to organize

during comprehension-based practices (see Figure 4)and were evidenced in the IRE sequences in lines 421,3949, and 5258, as ref lected in Table 3.

To some extent, Mr. Webber hypermediated(Gutirrez & Stone, 2002) problem solving among stu-dents, constraining opportunities for them to draw ontheir cultural and experiential knowledge. For example,after he asked students why they think cats lick their fur(lines 1617), Daniel ventured, To clean themselves(line 18). Rather than evaluate Daniels response, Mr.

Webber suggested they confirm that answer (line 19),but hypermediated by asking the leading question,Could it be to take off their fleas? (lines 1920) andsimulating pulling fleas off of his body (lines 2021).

This brief example shows that this hypermediatedassistance constrained the joint problem solving thatmight have potentially occurred between this teacherand his students. These discourse practices, thus, hadconsequences. They constrained ELLs opportunitiesto participate in student-centered and student-initiateddiscussions and to think and talk jointly about thecontent knowledge that Mr. Webber introduced dur-ing story previews. Moreover, these normative practicesconstrained the type and amount of information that hecould potentially glean from relatively more open-endedquestions and discussions, minimizing his facilitationof students comprehension of this Hmong folk tale.

Across these classroom ecologies, subtle differencesemerge. Closer analyses of bilingual teachers provisionof the background knowledge needed to fully engage

in the new text for the week illustrate that how teach-ers organized mediational tools and artifacts (i.e., top-ics, themes, discourses, participation structures, texts,illustrations, magnifying glasses) affected studentsmeaning-making opportunities. Story previews in Mr.

Webbers classroom tended to hone skills (e.g., conti-nent names), emphasize facts, foster information recall,and constrain students ongoing contributions to text-based sense making and interpretations. Mrs. Nylundsorganization of story previews employed medationaltools (e.g., imagination, magnifying glass) in ways thatenabled students to build conceptual understandingsfrom concrete experiences (e.g., seeing the world from

different perspectives), participate in more open-endeddiscourse practices, and embed language and thinkingskills within semiotics-driven contexts.

While these story previews reflected these teach-ers emphasis on enhancing reading comprehensionfor their third-grade ELLs, their distinct instantiationsof story previews in particular reflected their reportedshifts in curriculum practices in the current English-only accountability f

Documents

Pacheco (2010)