TEACHING AND RESEARCHING ELLS’ DISCIPLINARY LITERACIES Written from a critical perspective, this volume provides teachers, teacher educators, and classroom researchers with a conceptual framework and practical methods for teaching and researching the disciplinary literacy development of English language learners (ELLs). Grounded in a nuanced critique of current social, economic, and political changes shaping public education, Gebhard offers a comprehensive framework for designing curriculum, instruction, and assessments that build on students’ linguistic and cultural resources and that are aligned with high-stakes state and national standards using the tools of systemic functional linguistics (SFL). By providing concrete examples of how teachers have used SFL in their work with students in urban schools, this book provides pre-service and in-service teachers, as well as literacy researchers and policy makers, with new insights into how they can support the disciplinary literacy development of ELLs and the professional practices of their teachers in the context of current school reforms. Key features of this book include the voices of teachers, examples of curriculum, sample analyses of student writing, and guiding questions to support readers in conducting action-oriented research in the schools where they work. Meg Gebhard is Professor of Applied Linguistics and co-director of the Secondary English Education Program at University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA. Language, Culture, and Teaching Sonia Nieto, Series Editor Doing Youth Participatory Action Research Transforming Inquiry with Researchers, Educators, and Students Nicole Mirra, Antero Garcia, Ernest Morrell Language and Power in Post-Colonial Schooling Ideologies in Practice Carolyn McKinney Dialoguing across Cultures, Identities, and Learning Crosscurrents and Complexities in Literacy Classrooms Bob Fecho, Jennifer Clifton Language, Culture, and Teaching Critical Perspectives, 3rd Edition Sonia Nieto Teaching Culturally Sustaining and Inclusive Young Adult Literature Critical Perspectives and Conversations R. Joseph Rodríguez Teacher Evaluation as Cultural Practice A Framework for Equity and Excellent Maria del Carmen Salazar, Jessica Lerner Teaching and Researching ELLs’ Disciplinary Literacies Systemic Functional Linguistics in Action in the Context of U.S. School Reform Meg Gebhard For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge.com/ Language-Culture-and-Teaching-Series/book-series/LEALCTS TEACHING AND RESEARCHING ELLS’ DISCIPLINARY LITERACIES Systemic Functional Linguistics in Action in the Context of U.S. School Reform Meg Gebhard First published 2019 by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2019 Taylor & Francis The right of Meg Gebhard to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this title has been requested ISBN: 978-1-138-09089-7 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-138-09090-3 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-10839-1 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Apex CoVantage, LLC Dedicated to Dom, Anna, and Alex Sciaruto Q Taylor & Francis �- Taylor & Francis Group http://tayl o ra ndfra nels.com CONTENTS List of Figures List of Tables Acknowledgements xi xiii xv 1 Teaching and Researching ELLs’ Disciplinary Literacy Development in Hard Times: A Critical Perspective 1 Rationale: The Making of a “Perfect Storm” 4 My Literacy Biography: Learning (and Not Learning) to Become a Critical Reader, Writer, and Thinker 5 A Critical Approach to Understanding Language, Learning, and Social Change in U.S. Public Schools 9 Overview of Chapters 15 Praxis 19 Notes 20 References 21 2 Celine’s Questions: Race, Immigration, and Literacy Development in Schools Celine’s Literacy Practices: A Case Study 26 Crossing Linguistic, Cultural, and Institutional Boundaries in Schools 28 Text/Context Dynamics 30 Celine’s Educational Background 33 Mr. Banks’ Feedback 36 24 viii Contents Rethinking the Word “Grammar” From an SFL Perspective Summary 38 Praxis 39 Notes 41 References 42 3 4 5 37 Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday: Shifting Conceptions of Grammar and Language Learning Skinner: A Behavioral Perspective 47 Chomsky: A Psycholinguistic Perspective 48 Halliday: A Social Semiotic Perspective 55 Summary and Critique of Different Perspectives of Grammar and Approaches to Language Teaching and Learning in Schools 65 Praxis 68 Notes 73 References 73 Genres, Registers, and the Teaching and Learning Cycle Text/Context Dynamics: Analyzing Email Requests Sent to a Professor 79 SFL, Genres, and Registers 82 SFL in Action: The Teaching and Learning Cycle in K-12 Schools 86 The Teaching and Learning Cycle and Martin’s Genre Theory SFL, Genre Theory, and the TLC in the Context of U.S. School Reforms 93 ACCELA’s Approach to the TLC 98 Summary 111 Praxis 112 Note 115 References 115 Registers: Critically Analyzing Field, Tenor, and Mode Choices Field: Constructing Content, Ideas, and Experiences 122 Tenor: Constructing Voice, Social Roles, and Power Dynamics Mode: Managing the Flow of Information 141 Summary 150 Praxis 151 Notes 160 References 160 44 76 88 119 131 Contents ix 6 Policies and Practices to Support ELLs’ Disciplinary Literacy Development: A Civil Rights Perspective Twenty-First Century Demographic Changes in U.S. Public Schools 165 Students’ Civil Rights and Approaches to Language Education 168 K-12 ESL Program Types 170 The WIDA Consortium 174 Summary 186 Praxis 187 Notes 189 References 189 162 7 Shifting Conceptions of Equity: Standardization, Accountability, and Privatization in School Reform 193 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) 195 English-only Policies and Anti-bilingual Education Ideologies 198 Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the Disciplinary Literacy Development of All Students 201 Standardization and Accountability in Teacher Evaluation 209 Summary 213 Praxis 214 Notes 217 References 217 8 Placing the Education of ELLs in a Historic, Economic, and Political Context The Growth of the Modern School System: Two Faces of the Progressive Era 222 The Schooling of Immigrants in the 20th Century 225 The Schooling of Immigrants in the 21st Century 229 Summary 233 Praxis 234 Note 237 References 237 9 Putting It All Together: SFL in Action Text/Context Dynamics in U.S. Public Schools: A Review of Key Concepts 241 Teaching and Researching ELLs’ Disciplinary Literacy Development at Milltown High 247 221 239 x Contents Implications for Classroom Practice and Research Summary 266 Praxis 267 Notes 269 References 270 Index 265 273 FIGURES 1.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 6.1 7.1 Text/context dynamics in schools Text/context dynamics in schools Celine’s editorial for her high school journalism class (page 1 of 2) Celine’s editorial with Mr. Banks’ comments Text/context dynamics in schools Example of the “attitude line,” a classroom artifact representing the polarity continuum Text/context dynamics in schools (focus on genre and register) The expanded teaching and learning cycle (TLC) – an approach to supporting multilingual students’ literacies and teachers’ professional development through action research A genre based rubric used to assess second-grade grade students’ narratives and to guide the planning of scaffolding activities Joint construction of a personal narrative in a third grade class Lynne’s focal students’ Fountas and Pinnell reading scores Text/context dynamics in schools (focus on genre and register) Julia’s use of tenor resources in three texts arguing for recess to be re-instated (Gebhard, Harman, & Seger, 2007, pp. 423, 427) Tally’s tracking of themes in her draft of a letter to then Senator John Kerry (Gebhard & Graham, 2018) Student analysis of reply letter from U.S. Department of Agriculture (Gebhard & Graham, 2018) A pre-service teacher’s handout designed to support the reading and analysis of Trevor Noah’s Born a Crime Text/context dynamics in schools (focus on genre and register) Text/context dynamics in schools (focus on genre and register) 14 25 27 35 57 63 81 99 103 106 110 121 140 147 148 159 163 194 xii 7.2 8.1 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 Figures Data wall depicting third graders’ scores from mandated state tests in an urban school Text/context dynamics in schools (focus on genre and register) Text/context dynamics in schools (focus on genre and register) The expanded teaching and learning cycle (TLC) One page overview of the genre of math reports (sample from student curriculum packet) Rubric for peer, self, and teacher assessment of student math reports (sample from student curriculum packet) 197 222 242 246 249 250 TABLES 1.1 1.A 1.B 2.1 2.A 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.A 4.1 4.2 4.A 4.B An SFL Comparison of the Differences Between Everyday and Discipline-Specific Ways of Making Meaning in Science Group Members’ Literary Biographies Terms and Concepts A Continuum of Differences Between Everyday and Disciplinary Multimodal/Multilingual Texts Qualitative Case Study Data Collection Plan Twelve Ways English Constructs Time Through its Tense System Examples of Tenor Resources (Derewianka, 2011; Droga & Humphrey, 2003; Martin & White, 2005; Schleppegrell, 2004) Examples of Cohesive Devices Used in Different Disciplinary Genres (Derewianka, 2011; Droga & Humphrey, 2003; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004; Schleppegrell, 2004) Types of Verbs that Make Meaning in Narratives (Derewianka, 2011; Droga & Humphrey, 2003; Martin & White, 2005; Schleppegrell, 2004) Conceptions of Grammar in the Teaching and Learning of Language and Literacy in Schools Analyzing Classroom Discourse Practices Genre and Register Analysis of an Email to a Professor High Frequency Genres Used to Construct Disciplinary Knowledge in School (Derewianka & Jones, 2016; Rose & Martin, 2012; Schleppegrell, 2004) Planning Standards-Based Curriculum Using the Expanded TLC Description of Expected Genre and Register Features for Targeted Disciplinary Text 11 20 20 31 41 49 59 60 62 66 71 84 89 113 114 xiv 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.A 5.B 5.C 5.D 6.1 6.2 6.A 7.A 7.B 9.1 9.2 Tables Transitivity in Simple and More Complex Sentences Processes or Verb Types (Derewianka, 2011; Droga & Humphrey, 2003; Schleppegrell, 2004) Participant or Noun Group Types (Derewianka, 2011; Droga & Humphrey, 2003; Schleppegrell, 2004) Circumstances Types (Derewianka, 2011; Droga & Humphrey, 2003; Schleppegrell, 2004) The Grammatical Mood System (Derewianka, 2011; Derewianka & Jones, 2016; Droga & Humphrey, 2003; Schleppegrell, 2004) Use of Field and Tenor Resources in a High School Math Class The Modality System (Derewianka, 2011; Droga & Humphrey, 2003; Schleppegrell, 2004) Appraisal Systems Ways of Building Ideas through Theme/Rheme Patterns (Coffin, 2009; Derewianka, 2011; Droga & Humphrey, 2003; Eggins, 2004; Schleppegrell, 2004) Expected genre and register features Sample Table of Field Resources Sample Table of Tenor Resources Sample Table of Mode Resources Sheltered English Immersion (SEI) WIDA Proficiency Levels (adapted from WIDA, 2012) Comparing Classroom Supports for ELLs’ Disciplinary Literacy Development Within an Institutional Context Analysis of Teacher Interviews Regarding the Standardization and Accountability Movement Analysis of High-Stakes Testing Data Model Text and Annotated Model Text (samples from student curriculum packet) Samples of an ELL Student’s Texts Across Disciplinary Genres 123 125 128 130 131 133 135 137 143 152 156 157 158 171 176 188 215 215 253 262 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am deeply appreciative of the many people who have shaped the development of Teaching and Researching ELLs’ Disciplinary Literacies. I am particularly indebted to the many elementary and secondary students and their teachers who have agreed to allow me to use their work in this book. I am also eternally grateful to the many students and colleagues I have had the pleasure of collaborating with while at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. For almost 20 years, I have benefited greatly from working with students and faculty in the Language, Literacy, and Culture concentration, especially colleagues associated with the ACCELA Alliance (Access to Critical Content and English Language Acquisition). I have also benefited greatly from my work with students and colleagues in Teacher Education and School Improvement, especially those connected with the Secondary English Education Program. In addition, other colleagues, students, and friends have read drafts of chapters and provided valuable feedback and support. Specifically, I would like to thank Kathryn Accurso, Jackie Bell, Nicolas Blaisdell, Sara Braman, Lynn Britton, I-An Chen, Ruth Critcher, Lara Donachie, Rachel Ellis, Holly Graham, Bill Grohmann, Drew Habana Hafner, Ruth Harman, Grace Harris, Andrew Hatch, Juan Pablo Jiménez Caicedo, Fernanda Kray, John Levasseur, Beth Marsh, Stephanie Purington, Rachel Ravelli, Amy Rivera, Jennie Schuetz, Wendy Seger, Cecily Selden, Dong-shin Shin, Erik Sussbauer, Cathy Tulungen, Greta Vollmer, Ruslana Westerlund, and Mary Wright for their contributions and feedback. I would also like to express my thanks to people who have helped me create multilingual materials used in this book, including Angel Nieto, Reda Othman, Brahim Oulbeid, and Marvin Quinones. Moreover, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to the mentors who have contributed so significantly to my understanding of language, learning, and xvi Acknowledgements social change. Specifically, I would like to thank Maria Estela Brisk, Anne Dyson, Claire Kramsch, Lily Wong Fillmore, Sonia Nieto, Mary Schleppegrell, Cheryl Spaulding, and Jerri Willett. Last, I want to acknowledge the support of my family, including my daughter Anna and my son Alex, who have also provided me with never-ending interesting conversation about their schooling experiences, their emerging literacy practices across grade levels and content areas, and their increasingly insightful thoughts on issues of language, race, class, and gender. 1 TEACHING AND RESEARCHING ELLS’ DISCIPLINARY LITERACY DEVELOPMENT IN HARD TIMES A Critical Perspective In the opening of Charles Dickens’ Hard Times, published in 1854, readers are introduced to a dehumanizing school system in industrial England, a system that prizes facts and demands students and teachers reject creativity and imagination. In Dickens’ critique of schooling in 19th century England, students are reduced to numbers and educators to technocrats. Ironically, a similar parody could be written of schooling in the 21st century in the United States despite advances in what we know about teaching and learning, literacy development, and school change. While certainly different from the fictional world of class struggle that Dickens created over 150 years ago, current school reforms often reduce students to their test scores. Moreover, regardless of who students are, what their needs might be, and what teachers’ and administrators’ professional judgment might suggest to be a more promising course of action, teachers are increasingly evaluated on their ability to adhere faithfully to scripted teaching materials aligned with expanding lists of state and federal standards designed to improve test scores. This problem is especially acute in under-resourced schools that serve poor students of color who are classified as “English language learners” (ELLs).1 Just like the characters in Dickens’ novel, the consequences for students and teachers failing, or, more accurately, schools failing them, are profound. As will be explored in detail in this book, this failure is about more than class struggles and moral dilemmas depicted in Dickens’ novel. Rather, this book explores race, class, and language differences in U.S. public schools at a time of rapid demographic, cultural, economic, and political change brought on by the forces of globalization and the shift from a manufacturing to a knowledge-based economy (e.g., Gebhard, 2004). In response, state and federal policies such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Common Core State Standards (CCSS), and English-only 2 A Critical Perspective mandates, while well intended, have produced a host of paradoxes that make the job of teaching disciplinary literacies to all students very challenging work. To respond to these challenges, this book provides pre- and in-service teachers, teacher educators, literacy researchers, and policy makers with an introduction to a critical perspective of disciplinary literacy development. This perspective draws primarily on the work of Michael Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan and their understanding of how language and other meaning-making systems work in the cultural contexts in which texts are produced and interpreted (e.g., Halliday & Hasan, 1985; Hasan, 2004). These systems include the way people use facial expressions, gestures, talk, print, images, diagrams, graphs, and equations throughout their lives in and out of school to accomplish a vital and wide-ranging array of cultural, academic, and political work. In addition, this book is informed by a sociocultural perspective of development, meaning that what we know and how we come to know it are shaped by the social interactions we have with others and how we use language and other meaning-making tools to construct knowledge—first as children, later as students, and ultimately as workers in a technologically mediated workplace (e.g., New London Group, 1996). Furthermore, this book is influenced by a critical perspective of language and social change (e.g., Fairclough, 1992). This perspective, especially as it relates to schooling, attends closely to how students institutionally designated as ELLs gain access to and are provided support for learning how to read, write, and critically engage with challenging disciplinary texts, particularly in ways that matter to them, their families, and the communities to which they belong. A key premise of this book, therefore, is that we need to pay much closer attention to how multilingual/multimodal practices in schools are shaped by unexamined beliefs, attitudes, and ideologies regarding the nature of language, learning, and social change (e.g., Gebhard, 2004, 2005). This book also argues that, in collaboration with others, teachers are capable of playing an active role in their own professional development, as well as contributing to the knowledge base of teaching by collecting, analyzing, and reflecting on the literacy practices of their students (e.g., Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Morrell, 2017). Drawing on Halliday’s theory of systemic functional linguistics (SFL), I maintain that educators can develop new insights into teaching and learning in multilingual schools by analyzing how language in their classrooms works in three consequential ways to: (1) construct ideas and experiences; (2) enact social roles, identities, and power dynamics; and (3) manage the flow of communication in extended oral, written, multimodal, and computer-mediated texts (e.g., Halliday, 1993; New London Group, 1996). In addition, I argue that we need to attend more closely to how institutional practices in schools, as highly structured institutions, play a role in how students are grouped or tracked for instruction (e.g., Oakes, 2005). As will be discussed in later chapters, public schools were designed in the shadow of 20th century A Critical Perspective 3 factories to efficiently and cost-effectively manage the ins-and-outs of providing a free education to all students regardless of their race, class, gender, country of origin, and home language (e.g., Tyack, 1974). Paradoxically, and especially for poor, multilingual students of color, this industrial approach to schooling works against the goal of providing all students with access to and support for learning how to read and write challenging texts in math, science, social studies, and English language arts (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 2006). Like the school system depicted in Hard Times, the U.S. approach to public schooling today tends to downplay the importance of creativity, imagination, and play, all of which are essential to learning and innovating in the 21st century. Unfortunately, as will be demonstrated in later chapters, current school reforms have not fostered a balanced approach to supporting students in learning disciplinary knowledge and innovating with language and other meaning-making tools such as graphics, images, and equations. As a result, I argue that current school reforms associated with the standardization and accountability movement have further marginalized multilingual ELLs and de-professionalized their teachers (e.g., Gebhard, Chen, Graham, & Gunawan, 2013). To counter this problem, this book provides educators with an opportunity to rethink their assumptions about language, learning, and change with two goals in mind. First, it aims to support classroom teachers in becoming change agents capable of designing rigorous disciplinary and “culturally sustaining” curriculum (e.g., Paris & Alim, 2014, p. 85). Second, it aims to support pre- and inservice teachers, teacher educators, and literacy researchers, including doctoral students, in forming collaborative research groups. These groups can contribute to the interdisciplinary knowledge bases that inform teacher education, literacy research, multicultural education, critical applied linguistics, and educational policy. Engaging in this kind of collaborative work is especially important given the hard times in which many students live and teachers work—times marked by intense civil unrest, expanding workloads, and shrinking budgets for public education. In sum, this book supports readers in exploring the following pressing questions: • • • What is “disciplinary literacy” and how is it different from more “everyday” ways of making meaning with languages and other sign systems (e.g., gestures, images, graphs, equations)? What is learning and how can teachers design curriculum, instruction, and assessments to support the development of new literacy practices that will, in turn, help students accomplish a wider variety of disciplinary, social, and political goals? To what extent do school reforms of the past and present support and/or constrain teachers in enacting an equity agenda in their classrooms, especially for students institutionally designated as ELLs? 4 • A Critical Perspective How can teachers, working in collaboration with others, use ideas presented in this book to become change agents to support multilingual students’ disciplinary literacy development and their own sense of professional efficacy? Rationale: The Making of a “Perfect Storm” The rationale for this book rests on the need for stronger forms of teacher professional development in schools where the impact of globalization, changing demographics, and state and federal reforms are felt intensely (e.g., Valdés & Castellón, 2011). As numerous studies have documented, the population of students attending schools in the United States has become linguistically, racially, economically, and culturally more diverse. These demographic shifts have made the professional development of all K-12 teachers a high priority (e.g., Lucas, 2011). For example, in 1993, the population of students officially designated as ELL was estimated at 2.1 million (NCES, 2004). By 2011, this figure more than doubled to 4.4 million (NCES, 2013), and it has been projected that by 2025 one out of every four students will be classified as ELL (Capps, Fix, Murray, Ost, Passel, & Herwantoro, 2005). In addition, recent figures underscore that the majority of students designated as ELLs were born in the United States (Zong & Batalova, 2015). These students, like many profiled in this book, are U.S. citizens. They have relied almost exclusively on U.S. public schools for their education, yet have not been supported in learning how to read, write, or critically discuss grade-level texts despite many years of formal education (e.g., Slama, 2011). Furthermore, research suggests that current school reforms have only made matters worse (e.g., Menken, 2008). These reforms include English-only mandates, NCLB legislation, the CCSS, and the use of costly standardized assessments to evaluate both students and teachers. High-stakes assessments used to determine students’ eligibility for graduation have pushed many students out of high school. And their teachers, whose professional rankings and sometimes salaries are also determined by high-stakes assessments, have been penalized rather than supported (e.g., McLaughlin, Glaab, & Hilliger Carrasco, 2014). Leading policy analysts have characterized this combination of demographic changes, school reforms, and lack of meaningful teacher professional development as a “perfect storm”—a costly storm that has widened, rather than closed, the educational opportunity gap between middle-class students and poor students, especially ELLs (Gándara & Baca, 2008, p. 201). In response, a number of states, school districts, and colleges require teachers to complete coursework in “Teaching Content-Based English as a Second Language” or “Sheltered English Immersion.” These mandates have sent many teacher educators scrambling to figure out how they can cram lengthy lists of required topics and professional standards into yet another required course or professional development workshop. Further, they face the challenge of finding one or two accessible textbooks that address all the required topics, or they must curate A Critical Perspective 5 their own collection of articles. Such scrambling is not likely to provide teachers with a coherent conceptual framework or any aligned pedagogical approach that will support them in teaching disciplinary literacy practices to their multilingual students. The goal of this chapter, therefore, is to introduce readers to a critical social semiotic perspective of disciplinary literacy development in times of rapid change. To accomplish this, I first describe my language learning and teaching experiences, as a student, then as a middle school English as a second language (ESL) teacher, and now as a teacher educator and literacy researcher. This narrative locates me as an author, highlights the shortcomings of leading approaches to teaching reading and writing, and makes a case for a critical perspective of literacy instruction grounded in Halliday’s theory of SFL. Second, I argue that the critical use of SFL teaching and learning tools can support multilingual students in constructing a wide variety of disciplinary ideas; expanding the range of social roles and identities they take up in school; and managing the flow of dense and/or extended texts in and out of classroom contexts. Third, I argue that teachers can develop a greater understanding of factors that support and constrain student learning and teacher professionalism by exploring classroom interactional practices, institutional approaches to teaching ELLs, and past and present school reforms. Fourth, I provide a brief overview of the theoretical principles guiding the book. In subsequent chapters, these topics will be elaborated through the use of teacher voices, transcripts from classroom discussions, and analyses of student writing. Finally, I conclude this chapter with a set of “praxis” questions that are designed to support readers in connecting theoretical concepts to the practicalities of teaching and learning through reflection and action (Freire, 1993, p. 119). My Literacy Biography: Learning (and Not Learning) to Become a Critical Reader, Writer, and Thinker Learning to read and write was not easy for me. Phonics drills, controlled reading passages, and reading aloud in class were not only difficult, but embarrassing in ways that made me a resistant student. I struggled to sound out words and hated the halting way I read aloud. If given the freedom to read and write about anything I wanted, I often did not know how to begin. Worse yet, I was acutely aware that my friends enjoyed completing worksheets and moving forward in the series of leveled reading books used in my elementary school. These books were marked with different colors that conferred different levels of academic status, a fact not lost on me, even at the age of six. I was also aware that my friends read interesting books for pleasure and shared these books with one another, books that were beyond my ability to read independently. By middle school, I learned how to hide how long it took me to read assignments, how long it took me to complete my homework, and how badly my atrocious spelling marred my efforts to communicate through print. I was frustrated that my ability to engage with challenging texts did not match that of my friends 6 A Critical Perspective or the expectations of my parents, nor did it match my desire to engage with big ideas. Later in high school, when reading and writing fluency was less of an issue, I became bored and resentful of the lifeless curriculum and routine drill-andpractice activities that characterized my school day. Despite my lackluster high school experiences, I was accepted to the State University of New York at Binghamton, an institution that today might not accept someone with my mediocre grades or be affordable for students who, like me, have to pay for college themselves. My parents made college teaching salaries and had five children. However, in the early 1980s, it was possible for students to take out loans and pay for their own education at state-funded universities without racking up a crushing amount of debt. As I look back, I am grateful for the opportunities I had because it was at Binghamton that I discovered linguistics and began developing a stronger sense of myself as a reader, writer, and thinker. After graduating, I pursued a master’s degree in education at Syracuse University and licensure to teach ESL. In doing so, I coupled my background in linguistics with social theories of learning and literacy development. The experiences that most shaped my thinking were courses taught by a professor named Cheryl Spaulding, who introduced me to the concepts of the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) and scaffolding (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976, see Chapter Four). She also shared her previous experiences as a high school English teacher and the strategies she used to motivate struggling ninth grade readers and writers by developing their sense of competence as learners and their sense of control over how they approached challenging academic texts (Spaulding, 1995). Equipped with an understanding of social theories regarding language, learning, literacy, curriculum design, and motivation, I began my student teaching experience at a large, urban high school that primarily served poor students of color. At this school, approximately 60% of the students identified as African American, 20% as White, 10% as Latino, and 10% as Asian. Of these students, approximately 15% were designated as having “limited English proficiency.” In this context, many of my beliefs about schooling were challenged. For example, during my student teaching experience, I crossed linguistic and cultural boundaries associated with race and class and experienced firsthand how disparities in public education contribute to inequitable learning outcomes. Stated in another way, after having been highly critical of the education I had received in a predominately White middle-class community, I realized that I had attended a high school that was much better resourced and supported than the urban school I was student teaching in—a school only 30 miles from my hometown. This situation struck me as shocking, given that I had come of age during the civil rights movements of the 1960s and 1970s and naively did not realize that segregation and inequity were still pressing issues in U.S. schools. After graduating from Syracuse University, I was offered a job as an ESL teacher in a working-class middle school just outside of Boston. This school had witnessed a dramatic change in its demographics as a result of the expansion of A Critical Perspective 7 Boston’s public transportation system. Equipped with youthful outrage and a lot of theory, but not much practical experience, I was committed to designing content-based and project-oriented curriculum and instruction for my students, most of whom were from China, Vietnam, and Cambodia. On my first day of work, I met with the principal. After telling me she was not sure why the district had hired someone with no experience, she handed me the names of 130 students and two bilingual teachers. Her directions were short and clear: My job was to design what amounted to a “school within a school,” make the schedules for all 130 students, and make the schedules for my two bilingual colleagues. She ended our brief meeting by saying, “If these kids don’t get an education, it’s on you.” Not surprisingly, my first year was a rocky one. But, I soon discovered that I enjoyed designing curriculum, especially as it related to children’s literature, historical fiction, and teaching adolescents to write. Loaded with ideas from my graduate program, I designed units of study in English language arts and U.S. history that fused language learning goals with content objectives. Specifically, as a way of teaching them to read and write about authentic literature, I selected meaningful passages from full-length books that were required reading in the district’s elementary schools, as well as interesting books I thought might appeal to my students. I also selected texts that were challenging, but not overwhelming, especially if students were able to work in groups and speak their home languages along with English. Using this strategy, I hoped that everyone in the class, regardless of their English proficiency and familiarity with alphabetic print, could get a foothold in discussions, learn English, and be better prepared for high school. Students also worked in groups as they went about producing final projects for each unit I had designed based on my reading of Nancie Atwell’s influential book In the Middle: Writing, Reading, and Learning with Adolescents (1987). I also had the support of a volunteer, an elderly man named Mr. Biggs, who came to school several times each week to help students edit their final texts, which he then typed (yes, on a typewriter). These final projects, often accompanied by illustrations, were posted on the bulletin board outside the classroom. They included photo autobiographies; illustrated historical timelines; personal narratives; adaptations of fairytales, folk stories, and myths from around the world; poems; analyses of characters in different novels; and explanations regarding themes and symbols in literary texts. In one intermediate ESL class, students worked in heterogeneous groups to explore issues of race during the 1950s through reading and discussion of Mildred Taylor’s (1987) short story The Gold Cadillac. In selecting texts like this, I worked with a librarian in Boston to find short stories that were well written, explored topics of potential interest, and supported specific disciplinary content goals. Once I settled on a text, I photocopied it and created a curriculum packet that included the goals of the overall project, a schedule for getting the project done, a model of what a final project might look like, and a rubric explaining how students would be assessed. 8 A Critical Perspective After four years of enjoying the freedom I had to create curriculum, something unheard of in many schools today, I needed a change. I had become aware that my students’ educational experiences were shaped not only by their low status as ELLs, but also by issues related to race, class, and gender that further marginalized them within a school that structurally limited their access to disciplinary literacy practices. I grew weary of the overtly racist comments directed at my students and my bilingual colleagues. I also grew weary of the subtle and sometimes not so subtle hostility directed at me as the one charged with fixing the problem of “these kids,” who moved into a tight-knit community that did not readily welcome outsiders. Based on my experiences teaching in Boston and my interest in addressing issues of equity, I applied to PhD programs. I wanted a deeper understanding of how different theories of language and literacy development intersected with theories of social change in the context of school reforms in the United States. As I wrote my applications, the questions that propelled me to graduate school were the same core questions that guide this book: What is language? How does literacy develop? And how can professional opportunities for teachers support more equitable educational outcomes and a greater sense of job satisfaction? My application must have caught the eye of Lily Wong Fillmore, who gave me the opportunity to study at the University of California, Berkeley. At Berkeley, I was introduced to theories of first and second language learning, approaches in analyzing institutional discourse, methods for conducting case studies of student literacy practices, issues of language and identity, and ways of analyzing schools as workplaces. Since then, the big questions that propelled me to graduate school have been further honed during my time at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, through my work with pre- and in-service teachers, doctoral students, and colleagues, who have pushed my thinking in regard to an SFL perspective of language, learning, and social change in “hard times.” The current hard times are marked by pressing economic insecurities for all but a small percentage of families (e.g., “the one percent”). They are also marked by intense civil unrest associated with questions regarding immigration, race, gender, gun control, and what constitutes an “authentic American” identity. The hot debates these questions engender saturate the media, as we see immigrant families separated at the border and movements such as Black Lives Matter, Times Up, and Never Again take root in American consciousness, sparking resistance from other groups associated with the Alternative Right. My ongoing experience working in urban schools makes it clear that teachers receive very little support in making sense of how school reforms and new social movements influence their work in powerful ways. Specifically, school reforms associated with the standardization and accountability movement make it very difficult for teachers to design engaging curriculum that supports students in learning to use disciplinary literacy practices in service of their own academic, cultural, and political interests. A Critical Perspective 9 A Critical Approach to Understanding Language, Learning, and Social Change in U.S. Public Schools In response to these hard times, this book is designed to introduce elementary and secondary teachers, as well as ESL, bilingual, and reading specialists, to Halliday’s SFL and its affordances in designing curriculum and collaborating with other educators to enact an equity agenda in schools. As a start, however, it is important to highlight six key assumptions that inform this book. 1. Texts Are Multimodal The texts we interact with in our daily lives and in school are highly multimodal (e.g., Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996). For instance, oral interactions are usually accompanied by facial expressions, the use of gestures, and the use of objects in the immediate context. Most written texts we encounter in and out of school are multimodal, including children’s picture books; graphic novels; history textbooks with pictures, maps, and graphics that explain important events; science reports with diagrams, charts, graphs, and equations that prove findings; informational and commercial websites; and different forms of multilingual social media. In fact, multilinguals worldwide have the advantage of being able to draw on different languages and varieties of languages in constructing oral, written, and multimodal texts depending on the purpose of their communication (e.g., García & Wei, 2014). 2. Texts Shape and Are Shaped By the Embedded Cultural Contexts In Which They Are Produced and Interpreted Multilingual/multimodal texts, such as the ones just listed—even the kinds we produce for ourselves, like to-do lists—perform different and often multiple functions depending on their purpose, audience, and the contexts in which they are produced and interpreted. These different kinds of texts are referred to as genres and are defined as staged, goal-oriented social practices that have evolved over time in different embedded cultural contexts to accomplish different purposes (Martin & Rose, 2008). For example, if we hear the phrase “once upon a time,” most of us, based on our previous experiences, can predict that we are about to hear a narrative, most likely a fairy tale, that will unfold in a particular way and have particular characteristics and themes. Likewise, if we read the sentence “There are three types of rock formation,” we anticipate that the text might be an explanation describing each of the three types of rock formation. We might also think we are likely to be presented with images and a classification table that does the job of organizing and summarizing dense information. It is important to note, however, that while genres tend to have predictable stages that make them recognizable as performing specific purposes such as narrating or explaining, they 10 A Critical Perspective are also highly variable and flexible, given that people routinely invent new ways of accomplishing a wide range of social purposes in different contexts. 3. Multilingual/Multimodal Texts Function Systematically and Simultaneously In Three Ways: To Construct Ideas and Experiences, to Enact Social Roles, and to Manage the Flow of Information In articulating “a language-based theory of learning,” Halliday (1993, p. 93) explains how language simultaneously achieves three functions in constructing meaning. The ideational function constructs ideas and experiences; the interpersonal function enacts social roles, identities, and power dynamics; and the textual function manages the flow of information to make extended discourse coherent and cohesive (pp. 101–107). Halliday and Matthiessen (2004) explain this three-part approach to conceptualizing meaning-making systems by stating that within the cultural context in which it is produced and interpreted, every message or text is “about something” (the ideational function); addresses “someone” (the interpersonal function); and the message is managed to create “cohesion and continuity as it moves along” (the textual function) (p. 30). Applied to understanding literacy development in schools, this perspective suggests that as we grow up and interact with the world, we have more experiences and ideas to share with a greater variety of people through our uses of different kinds of texts and means of communicating (e.g., orally, through drawings, with print, online). Simultaneously, in interacting with a greater variety of people, we learn to use texts to construct different kinds of relationships that are shaped by our social status in relation to others, including our parents, relatives, teachers, coaches, community leaders, religious leaders, bosses, classmates, coworkers, friends, and loved ones. In addition, as we mature, we learn how to manage the flow of information in oral, written, and computer-mediated communication in the diverse cultural contexts in which we participate, including our homes, our neighborhoods, at school, in places of worship, and at work. Halliday maintains that this expansion of semiotic resources drives the development of our individual meaning-making repertoires as well as the evolution of meaning-making systems themselves (Halliday, 1993). This theory of meaning-making, as it relates to change, suggests that language and other semiotic systems function to express ideas, experiences, attitudes, judgments, and emotions in both commonsense and not-so-commonsense ways that shape our lives. For example, consider the option of choosing Ms. as a form of address as opposed to Miss or Mrs. In the 1970s, when Gloria Steinem popularized the use of Ms. with a magazine by the same name, it was considered radical. Today, most women, regardless of whether they identify as a feminist or not, use Ms. without pause. An analysis of the use of Latinx as a gender-neutral term in lieu of Latino or Latina is similarly motivated. A Critical Perspective 11 Moreover, the same process is true on a much larger scale when humans invent not just new words and phrases, but new tools of communication, such as the printing press, which contributed to the Protestant Reformation; the personal computer, which contributed to the digital revolution; and the smart phone, which is contributing to the social media revolution. In all of these examples, our uses of language and other meaning-making systems expand. And not just our individual meaning-making repertoires expand, but the system of resources available to society as a whole. For a more concrete example anchored in the work of students and teachers, consider the difference between the language a Puerto Rican student might use when conducting a science experiment with her peers about the relationship between the temperature and volume of a gas and how she might write a lab report for her teacher (see Table 1.1).2 In class with her friends, she might say something like, “Guau, it popped!” However, when she writes for her teacher, she might produce the following: “When the gas was heated, the air inside the TABLE 1.1 An SFL Comparison of the Differences Between Everyday and Discipline- Specific Ways of Making Meaning in Science Example of student language Everyday Discipline-specific Guau*, it popped! Cuando se calentó el gas, el aire dentro del globo se expandió. Por eso, llegamos a la hipótesis que la relación entre la temperatura y el volumen del gas eran directamente proporcional. When the gas was heated, the air inside the balloon expanded. Therefore, we hypothesized that the relationship between the temperature and the volume of a gas is directly proportional. • Use of technical words and phrases to construct a technical understanding of ideas and experience • Use of tempered language to construct a more detached and authoritative voice as opposed to an emotional one • Use of repeated words and synonyms as well as cohesive devices such as “therefore” to construct causal relationships between ideas • Use of everyday words and phrases to construct everyday ideas and experiences The interpersonal • Use of attitudinal function language to construct an emotional response and personal engagement The textual • Use of gestures, facial function expressions, and physical objects to construct cohesion and coherence The ideational function *Guau is how many Spanish speakers pronounce “wow” 12 A Critical Perspective balloon expanded and exploded. Therefore, we hypothesized that the relationship between the temperature and the volume of a gas is directly proportional.” In this example, the student shifts from an everyday way of using language to construct everyday ideas to choosing scientific words and sentence structures to construct a more scientific understanding of what she experienced (e.g., hypothesize, the relationship between the temperature and the volume of a gas). At the same time, she shifts from a more familiar voice to a more authoritative one by making linguistic choices that are less emotional. Furthermore, she is able to manage the flow of information by repeating a key word to stay on topic (e.g., “gas”) and by using specific cohesive devises to construct a causal relationship between ideas (e.g., “therefore”). Moreover, most students are expected to complete academic work in standardized English as opposed to standardized Spanish (or another language) because U.S. public schools, unlike public education systems in other countries, have historically promoted English monolingualism rather than bilingualism (de Jong, 2011). Finally, in typing her report, this student might use a word processing program and a drawing to ensure her final product is well polished and illustrated. Ultimately, she might submit her work electronically to be assessed using an online tool. 4. Theory Matters, In Both Productive and Unproductive Ways Historically, the fields of literacy research and second language acquisition have provided teachers with competing theories regarding the nature of language and literacy development. These different theories, in turn, have influenced how many of us have learned a second language (or not), what we think language is, and how we think literacy develops. Unfortunately, some of these theories, whether explicit or implicit, have socialized us into adopting a host of false assumptions about multilingualism. For example, despite ample empirical evidence to the contrary, many teachers believe that non-dominant varieties of language are linguistically less complex than dominant ones and that the mixing of languages is an indication that students may have cognitive problems. In regard to literacy instruction, some teachers think of language as comprised of formal rules that students need to memorize and practice such as sounds patterns, sentences structures, and paragraph structures. This skilland-drill perspective, which has its roots in behaviorism, stands in contrast to a more psycholinguistic perspective of literacy that suggests humans are born with a built-in cognitive ability to process language and that learning to speak, read, and write will happen more or less by itself through natural interactions. This contrasting perspective, taken to the extreme, suggests teachers should not explicitly teach language, especially grammar, because it will interfere with students’ development of linguistic competence (for a review, see Lightbown & Spada, 2013). A Critical Perspective 13 As illustrated in my own literacy biography and through a review of research that will be presented in Chapter Three, these different perspectives of language and literacy development have made it difficult for teachers to enact a balanced approach to instruction that supports the development of discipline-specific literacies. This problem needs to be addressed because students require models and strong forms of scaffolding to learn how to read, write, and critically analyze the kinds of dense texts they encounter in learning mathematics, science, history, and English language arts. It is highly unlikely that they will develop advanced mathematical and scientific knowledge or critical ways of analyzing literature and political systems without explicit instruction in the literacy practices that construct these different ways of knowing. Therefore, one of the purposes of this book is to provide teachers with an opportunity to examine “commonsense” and “not-so-commonsense” theories of language and learning. Knowledge of such theories will support teachers as they design, implement, and reflect on student learning as they become change agents in their classrooms and in the broader field of education (see Chapters Four, Five, and Nine). 5. Institutional Structures and Program Types Matter As will be discussed in Chapter Six, how schools programmatically group students and teach language shapes how students construct a sense of themselves as learners prepared for life after high school. For example, various program types such as “dual bilingual education,” “transitional bilingual education,” “ESL pull out,” “ESL push in,” and “sheltered English immersion” affect the degree to which students are able to draw on their home linguistic and cultural resources in learning to read, write, and analyze dense disciplinary texts about important issues shaping their lives (e.g., de Jong, 2011). In SFL terms, these programs, to varying degrees, support or cut students off from their home meaning-making resources and thereby provide or deprive them of one of the most valuable learning tools available to them as they develop new knowledge and literacy practices. Therefore, one of the purposes of this book is to provide teachers with insights into how different program types influence students’ disciplinary literacy practices over time. 6. History Matters The history of past educational reforms continues to shape how schools respond to race, class, gender, and language differences (e.g., Tyack & Cuban, 1995). Moreover, these reforms are influenced by prevailing economic forces and political debates that continue to produce and reproduce contradictions. For example, progressive school reforms in the 1900s saw the development of large modern school systems that provided an expanded curriculum, sports programs, 14 A Critical Perspective FIGURE 1.1 Text/context dynamics in schools meals, and health services to the poor, including newly arrived immigrants from Europe. However, these school reforms also tracked students, especially immigrants, in ways that tended to reproduce hierarchical social structures rather than flatten them. Chapters Seven and Eight draw on the historical record of school reforms to illustrate how these contradictions operate in schools today as teachers and their students attempt to negotiate the demands of a new wave of school reforms associated with the standardization and accountability movement (e.g., McDermott, 2011). The dynamic relationship between these six principles, which is illustrated in Figure 1.1, will be further explored in remaining chapters. These chapters are designed to inform the practices of educators working in different contexts, including pre-service teachers completing their degrees and meeting various licensure requirements and in-service teachers participating in collaborative research groups to support their professional development and enhance their understanding of the complex nature of teaching and learning in public schools. A Critical Perspective 15 Overview of Chapters Chapter Two provides an example of how, in my role as a teacher educator and literacy researcher, I have used the conceptual framework explained above to explore the intersection of language, learning, and social change in U.S. public schools. The chapter describes how I collaborated with a group of pre-service teachers who were completing a master’s degree program in education leading to a state license to teach ESL or secondary English language arts. As part of completing course work and licensure requirements, these pre-service teachers produced a case study focused on a text written by “Celine,” a multilingual immigrant student of color, and the challenges her teacher, “Mr. Banks,” faced in responding to Celine’s writing, given that he had few professional development opportunities related to supporting the disciplinary literacy development of ELLs.3 The chapter concludes with a series of tasks and discussion questions that support readers in forming action research groups for the purpose of critically reflecting on students’ textual practices and participating actively in their own professional development. Chapter Three provides an explanation for why teachers often struggle to provide meaningful feedback to students regarding their writing practices. Focusing on the classroom context illustrated in Figure 1.1, the chapter explores how behavioral and psycholinguistic orientations to language and literacy development have historically failed to equip teachers with the pedagogical tools needed to teach ELLs how to read, write, and critically analyze disciplinary texts. To support this claim, and in arguing for a social semiotic approach, I provide analyses of classroom interactions illustrative of behavioral, psycholinguistic, and social semiotic perspectives of language teaching and learning. The chapter concludes with suggestions for how readers can collect audio recordings of classroom interactions, produce transcripts of classroom discourse, and analyze how classroom talk supports or constrains students in participating in discussions, developing new knowledge, and constructing expanded classroom roles and identities. Chapter Four builds on previous chapters to explain Halliday’s functional model of text/context dynamics in more detail and how this perspective has informed a pedagogical approach to disciplinary literacy teaching across grade levels and in different content areas (e.g., Derewianka & Jones, 2016; Gibbons, 2014; Rose & Martin, 2012; Schleppegrell, 2004). Through an analysis of authentic texts produced by students, the chapter introduces the SFL concepts of context of culture, context of situation, genre, and register. It also explains how teachers can use knowledge of these concepts to design curriculum, instruction, and assessments and research the implications of their teaching practices on student learning using an approach called the teaching and learning cycle (e.g., Derewianka & Jones, 2016). Readers new to the field of applied linguistics may find this chapter and Chapter Five particularly challenging. However, wherever possible, I provide examples to show how teachers working in under-resourced urban schools have used SFL concepts 16 A Critical Perspective and pedagogical tools in highly productive ways. Specifically, the chapter details how teachers, most of whom had no previous background in linguistics, participated in a professional development partnership called the ACCELA Alliance and how they used SFL tools to plan, implement, and research the impact of their teaching practices on the literacy development of their students.4 Chapter Five continues the focus on SFL by exploring how register choices work to make disciplinary meanings in the texts that K-12 students are routinely required to read, write, and discuss in schools (e.g., Derewianka & Jones, 2016). Drawing on examples from ACCELA teachers’ research projects, the chapter demonstrates how teachers supported students in noticing how field choices construct the content of a text, tenor choices enact the voice, and mode choices manage the flow of information in the genres that routinely comprise the K-12 curriculum (e.g., narratives, descriptions, explanations, arguments). The chapter concludes with suggestions for how teachers can use SFL tools to design, implement, and reflect on instruction they provide. Chapter Six focuses on the institutional context of schooling and outlines how federal laws aimed at protecting students’ civil rights have changed approaches to bilingual and ESL education. The purpose of the chapter is to illuminate how state and federal policies influence the way educators teach students how to read and write in school. In addition, the chapter explains how an influential group called the World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) Consortium has emerged to support teachers in responding to new state and federal mandates. The chapter concludes by explaining how teachers, working collaboratively, can collect and analyze data to explore the degree to which the institutional contexts in which they work protect the civil rights of students designated as ELLs. Chapter Seven also focuses on the institutional context of schooling by examining how current school reforms shape teaching practices and learning opportunities of students, especially ELLs. These new reforms, which are part of an approach to school change referred to as the standardization and accountability movement, include NCLB legislation, English-only mandates, the adoption of the CCSS, and the use of high-stakes testing practices to assess students and evaluate teachers. The chapter concludes with suggestions for how teachers and teacher candidates can collect and analyze data on the influences of these reforms by conducting fieldwork as part of pre-practicum or practicum experiences, graduate studies, or through participation in a collaborative research group. Chapter Eight explores the historic, economic, and political context of U.S. public schooling. A brief analysis of the growth of public education in different regions of the United States during the last century helps illustrate two competing conceptions of progressive education (e.g., Tyack, 1974). The chapter argues that these conceptions engender contradictory approaches to literacy instruction and literacy development of students from immigrant families (e.g., Fass, 1989). The chapter invites teachers to explore the history of immigration in their local A Critical Perspective 17 communities to understand how demographic, economic, and political changes of the past continue to shape what happens in schools today. To bring together the theoretical discussion and practical aspects of teaching and researching ELLs’ disciplinary literacy development, Chapter Nine illustrates how a secondary teacher named Grace Harris used the conceptual framework shown in Figure 1.1 to design and implement disciplinary literacy instruction in a high poverty urban school. Together with a literacy researcher named Kathryn Accurso, we illustrate how Grace used SFL tools to scaffold the disciplinary literacy development of ELLs who were also labeled as “students with limited or interrupted formal education” (SLIFE). Specifically, we document the literacy development of “Valencia,” an immigrant student from Guatemala. Over two years, she learned to read and write autobiographies, poetry, scientific descriptions, mathematical reports, and social studies arguments by analyzing model texts and drawing on a wide variety of multilingual and multimodal resources. The purpose of the chapter is to provide readers with an example of a case study that pulls together theoretical concepts, teaching practices, and an analysis of student learning. The chapter concludes with guidance for teachers to produce their own case studies, which can support multilingual students’ disciplinary literacy practices and teachers’ professional development from inside their classrooms (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). A Key Feature of Each Chapter: Exploring the Praxis of Teaching and Researching Disciplinary Literacy Development Each chapter concludes with a “praxis” section (Freire, 1993, p. 119). The concept of praxis draws on the work of social justice educator Paulo Freire, who challenged the unproductive divide that exists between theory and practice by asking educators to reflect on the classroom experiences of students and teachers in a way that engages with the complexities of classroom life. Central to a praxis perspective is a commitment to understanding the linguistic and cultural resources that all students bring to their education as they attempt to retain a sense of themselves as members of the multiple communities to which they already belong, while attempting to construct new identities and new ways of knowing through learning how to read, write, and critique the dense technical texts they encounter in and out of school. Freire (1985) writes: The act of reading cannot be explained as merely reading words since every act of reading words implies a previous reading of the world and a subsequent rereading of the world . . . For me, this dynamic movement is central to literacy. (p. 18) Writing from an SFL perspective, Hasan (2003) calls this back and forth practice of understanding words through how they are used as “reflection literacy” 18 A Critical Perspective (p. 446). She maintains that this type of literacy requires that students are able to not only decode and interpret texts, but also reflect on the social significance of how language and other meaning-making systems construct knowledge. She writes, “the literate person should be able to interrogate the wording and the meaning of any utterance” to determine whose perspective is presented, whose perspectives are excluded, and how different ways of constructing knowledge impact the world we live in (2003, p. 447). The ability to question how knowledge is constructed inside and outside of classrooms is highly relevant to every student in the current political climate, as facts and opinions often blend in highly coercive ways. To this end, the “praxis” section at the end of each chapter will guide readers in using Figure 1.1 to collect and analyze data on how schools approach teaching students who are officially designated as ELLs. Collectively, these sections are designed to support research groups in achieving three related goals: • • • To develop a case study of an ELL or former ELL in the context where members of the research group teach, are completing degrees, or are meeting licensing requirements; To design an SFL-informed curricular unit that draws on students’ linguistic and cultural resources and is aligned with state and national standards; and To reflect on the impact of instructional practices on student learning, especially students’ abilities to produce well-developed and coherent disciplinary texts with greater expertise. In collecting and analyzing data for these three interrelated goals, it is important to attend to the ethics of conducting classroom research (e.g., Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). The collection of classroom data for a master’s thesis or doctoral dissertation typically requires the researcher to work through their school’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) to ensure that requirements related to gaining informed consent and protecting participants’ rights and confidentiality are met. In contrast, for the purposes of completing a professional development task, preand in-service teachers typically work with school administrators or teacher education programs in less formalized ways. In collecting data of any kind in schools, it is important to uphold high ethical and professional standards by not disturbing the flow of classroom interactions and protecting the rights and confidentiality of students and participating teachers. In addition, as will be discussed in Chapter Six, determining who is and is not an ELL is not straightforward. For the purposes of praxis tasks, ELLs will be defined as those having limited access to and support for learning how to read and write disciplinary texts because of issues related to differences between the language of schooling and their home language practices (see Table 1.1). Such students may be newly arrived immigrants in a bilingual program, students in an ESL or Sheltered English Immersion class, or multilingual students who were born in the United States but have not received sustained instruction in how A Critical Perspective 19 disciplinary texts make meaning in ways that are different from everyday ways of using language. The end-of-chapter praxis tasks will build over each successive chapter and will be grounded in the grade level and content area that is most relevant to the research group. Therefore, I encourage readers to preview all of the chapters and note that they are sequenced to support readers in exploring the meaning of Figure 1.1 as it applies to understanding the nature of literacy practices in the embedded institutional contexts in which students and teachers work, to designing linguistically and culturally responsive curriculum using SFL tools, and to analyzing changes in students’ disciplinary literacy practices using action-oriented case study methods (see Chapter Nine). Last, although the questions at the end of each chapter are geared toward conducting case studies in K-12 classrooms in the United States, groups can modify tasks to fit other contexts of interest (e.g., after-school programs, adult education settings, workplace education programs, tutoring sessions, online education, university settings, or international contexts). Praxis Forming Collaborative Research Groups The following discussion questions are designed to support readers in forming collaborative research groups with members who share an interest in a grade level and content area. Topics for discussion 1. 2. Where were you born and what language(s) were used in your home, community, and at school when you were a child? What memories do you have of going to school and learning to read and write in your first language and/or an additional language in elementary school? a. What kinds of tasks do you remember engaging in? b. How would you characterize these experiences? c. How did these experiences shape your sense of yourself as a learner? 3. What memories do you have of learning to read, write, and participate in classroom discussions when you were in middle or high school? a. What kinds of tasks do you remember engaging in? (Consider subject areas such as English, social studies, math, and science.) b. How would you characterize these experiences? c. How did these experiences shape your sense of yourself as a learner? 20 A Critical Perspective 4. What kinds of experiences and expertise do you bring to this group project (e.g., knowledge of more than one language, experience working in formal or informal educational contexts, access to a school, disciplinary knowledge, research experience)? How were your schooling experiences similar to or different from the students you teach or will likely teach in the future? Share your language and literacy biographies with one another and highlight commonalities and differences using Table 1.A. Add additional columns as topics emerge. 5. 6. TABLE 1.A Group Members’ Literary Biographies Name and Birth Literacy contact place and learning information language(s) experiences in elementary school 7. Disciplinary literacy experiences in secondary school Workrelated experiences and areas of expertise Implications Topics of interest for your work with diverse learners in schools Based on your discussion, brainstorm some possible topics of interest that you and/or the members of your group might explore. Record these topics in Table 1.B. TABLE 1.B Terms and Concepts Topic/term 8. Definition and other terms associated with this concept (include page numbers for future reference) Other notes (e.g., references for further reading; connections to other courses/ topics of study) Individually or as a group, list interesting and/or confusing terms or phrases related to concepts introduced in this and later chapters. Keeping a running record of terms will help you gain a better understanding of concepts and allow you to use them in your work as a teacher/teacher researcher. Notes 1 It is difficult to represent the diversity of students learning disciplinary “Englishes,” such as the English of literature, historical texts, scientific discourse, and mathematics, with labels such as “ESL” or “emergent bilingual.” In this book, I use the terms “English language learner,” “multilingual,” and simply “student” to capture the fact that all students A Critical Perspective 21 in U.S. schools are learning English for disciplinary purposes in very different content areas and they use multiple languages and varieties of language in productive ways in and outside of school. 2 I would like to thank Angel Nieto for his support in translating this example. 3 In line with ethics of research, all names of students, teachers, schools, and cities in this book are pseudonyms unless individuals have co-authored or presented their work at a conference with me and therefore have made their contributions public. 4 The ACCELA Alliance (Access to Critical Content and English Language Acquisition) was a professional development collaborative between the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and urban schools in Western Massachusetts. In collaboration with university faculty and doctoral students, over 60 practicing teachers earned a master’s degree in education and a state license to teach English as an additional language by conducting action research projects in their classrooms. See Chapter Five. References Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Writing, reading, and learning with adolescents. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Bogdan R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (4th ed.). New York: Pearson. Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new demography of America’s schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved from www.urban.org/research/publication/ new-demography-americas-schools/view/full_report Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. New York: Teachers College Press. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). No Child Left Behind and high school reform. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 642–667. de Jong, E.J. (2011). Foundations for multilingualism in education: From principles to practice. Philadelphia: Caslon. Derewianka, B.M., & Jones, P. (2016). Teaching language in context (2nd ed.). South Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press. Dickens, C. (1854). Hard times. London: Penguin Books. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Freire, P. (1985). Reading the world and reading the word: An interview with Paulo Freire. Language Arts, 62(1), 15–21. Fass, P. (1989). Outside in: Minorities and the transformation of American education. New York: Oxford University Press. Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Gándara, P., & Baca, G. (2008). NCLB and California’s English language learners: The perfect storm. Language Policy, 7(3), 201–216. García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Gebhard, M. (2004). Fast capitalism, school reform, and second language literacy practices. Modern Language Journal, 88(2), 245–265. Gebhard, M. (2005). School reform, hybrid discourses, and second language literacies. TESOL Quarterly, 39(2), 187–210. Gebhard, M., Chen, I., Graham, H., & Gunawan, W. (2013). Teaching to mean, writing to mean: SFL, L2 literacy, and teacher education. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(2), 107–124. 22 A Critical Perspective Gibbons, P. (2014) Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching English language learners in the mainstream classroom (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Halliday, M.A.K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5(2), 93–116. Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social semiotic perspective. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press. Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold. Hasan, R. (2003). Globalization, literacy and ideology. World Englishes, 22(4), 433–448. Hasan, R. (2004). The world in words: Semiotic mediation, tenor and ideology. In G. Williams & A. Lukin (Eds.), The development of language: Functional perspectives on species and individuals (pp. 158–181). London: Continuum. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. New York: Routledge. Lightbown, P.M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lucas, T. (Ed.). (2011). Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators. New York: Routledge. Martin, J.R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox. McDermott, K.A. (2011). High-stakes reform: The politics of educational accountability. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. McLaughlin, M., Glaab, L., & Hilliger Carrasco, I. (2014). Implementing common core state standards in California: A report from the field. Stanford, CA: Policy Analysis for California. Retrieved from http://edpolicyinca.org/sites/default/files/PACE%20CCSS%20 McLaughlin.pdf Menken, K. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Toronto: Multilingual Matters. Morrell, E. (2017). Toward equity and diversity in literacy research, policy, and practice: A critical global approach. Journal of Literacy Research, 49(3), 454–463. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2004). Issue brief: English language learner students in U.S. public schools: 1994 and 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ pubs2004/2004035.pdf National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2013). Table 203.50: Enrollment and percentage distribution of enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by race/ethnicity and region: Selected years, fall 1995 through fall 2023. Digest of Educational Statistics, 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/ dt13_203.50.asp New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92. Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Paris, D., & Alim, H.S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85–100. Rose, D., & Martin, J.R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. London: Equinox. A Critical Perspective 23 Schleppegrell, M.J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Slama, R.B. (2011). A longitudinal analysis of academic English proficiency outcomes for adolescent ELLs in the United States. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 265–285. Spaulding, C. (1995). Motivation or empowerment: What is the difference? Language Arts, 72(7), 489–494. Taylor, M. (1987). The gold Cadillac. New York: Puffin Books. Tyack, D. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Valdés, G., & Castellón, M. (2011). English language learners in American schools. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms (pp. 18–34). New York: Routledge. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. Zong, J., & Batalova, J. (2015). The limited English proficient population in the United States. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from www.migrationpolicy. org/article/limited-english-proficient-population-united-states 2 CELINE’S QUESTIONS Race, Immigration, and Literacy Development in Schools Imagine walking into the room and all you see is a classroom full of white native English speakers. And you think, “Am I in the right classroom? Are there more people coming because the bell just rang? Is this a joke?” Sometimes I feel like out of all the school I am the only black person who is willing to take this class. –“Celine,” U.S. high school student and former ELL This chapter provides a case study of the schooling experiences and literacy development of a student named Celine. In 2011, Celine, an immigrant from Portugal, was attending a high school in Massachusetts called “Lincoln High.” The data for this case study were collected by a team of pre-service teachers who were enrolled in a required course for their licensure programs related to becoming secondary English language arts teachers or English as a second language teachers in the United States or internationally.1 Guided by the six principles outlined in Chapter One and illustrated in Figure 2.1, I collaborated with this team to analyze how programs at Lincoln High supported Celine in: (1) learning new content knowledge (the ideational function of language); (2) constructing new roles and identities through the use of language and other meaning-making resources (the interpersonal function of language); and (3) managing the cohesive and coherent flow of ideas and perspectives in extended texts written for different purposes and audiences (the textual function of language, Halliday, 1993). However, as the data discussed in this chapter will reveal, when Celine attempted to enroll in a college-track journalism class, her teacher, “Mr. Banks,” through no fault of his own, was not prepared to provide her with feedback in ways that contributed to her ability to produce a well-crafted editorial about race, language, and equity at Lincoln High. Rather, guided by a form-focused conception of Race, Immigration, and Literacy Development FIGURE 2.1 25 Text/context dynamics in schools language, he painstakingly provided Celine with word- and sentence-level corrections, crossed out key paragraphs, and told her she was doing a “beautiful job.” Through classroom observations and interviews, it was clear that Mr. Banks cared deeply about both his students and equity issues. In class, he invited students to speak their minds and tackle tough social issues through their writing. Nonetheless, like many teachers, he was never provided with the kind of professional development opportunities necessary to respond to students’ texts in productive, meaningoriented ways. As a result, he could not support Celine in publishing a well-crafted editorial for the school or local paper, which was a goal of the course. To provide readers with insights into the experiences of Celine and Mr. Banks, this chapter explores the following question: • What is “academic” or “disciplinary literacy” and how is it different from more “everyday” ways of using language and other meaning-making systems (e.g., gestures, images, and graphics)? 26 Race, Immigration, and Literacy Development Celine’s Literacy Practices: A Case Study In the fall of 2011, Celine, who had immigrated to the United States from Portugal five years earlier, made her presence known in her high school journalism class as she often spoke her mind on matters of race, language, class, and gender in ways that sometimes made her predominantly White, monolingual classmates shift in their seats. Celine was one of the few students of color in this elective English class at Lincoln High, a school that enrolled approximately 1,000 students from the surrounding linguistically, racially, socioeconomically, and religiously diverse community (40% of students were of color, 25% were eligible for free or reduced lunch, and 15% were officially classified as ELLs). While it was prestigious at Lincoln High to become fluent in French or Spanish by taking advanced language classes or travelling internationally, it was less prestigious to speak varieties of these languages because one was from a multilingual family. Like most public schools, the students attending Lincoln High came together in an institutional context where their linguistic and cultural practices mixed and clashed with the linguistic and cultural practices of other students, teachers, and administrators. These clashes were highly consequential for the social and academic trajectories of students. For example, Celine spoke a variety of Portuguese at home, standardized English with teachers at school, and hybrid varieties of English, Spanish, and African American English when interacting with peers in class, in the hallways, and at lunch. She identified as “Black,” but not “African American,” spoke unaccented English, and had exited the school’s ESL program, but still had trouble reading and writing dense texts despite no longer being designated as an ELL. Celine’s fluid use of her home language, peer language, and disciplinary varieties of English complicate institutional labels such as “ESL,” “bilingual,” or “mainstream,” and erode the usefulness of binary classifications such as “native/ non-native speaker,” “first/second language,” or “social/academic language.” A more accurate way to describe Celine is “multilingual” (de Jong, 2011, p. 14) or “translingual” (García & Wei, 2014, p. 19). These terms describe the growing number of students who use different languages and varieties of languages—at home, in school, when playing sports or participating in after-school activities, in their religious practices, and at work—to accomplish social, academic, political, and economic work that matters to them. Mr. Banks, Celine’s journalism teacher, did not talk about Celine as “multilingual” or “translingual,” but was aware that Celine brought valuable linguistic and cultural resources to his class and encouraged her to draw on these resources in completing class assignments. He also encouraged Celine to express her opinions and designed his course to support all students in exploring topics of personal relevance and to write for a wider audience by requiring them to submit editorials to the school and local newspaper, some of which were published. In addition, Mr. Banks’ journalism class was heterogeneously mixed, meaning any student FIGURE 2.2 Celine’s editorial for her high school journalism class (page 1 of 2) 28 Race, Immigration, and Literacy Development could elect to enroll regardless of their previous academic record or educational goals. Celine had her eye on attending a historically Black college and registered for Mr. Banks’ class because she thought it would help her to improve her English, especially her writing. Figure 2.2 shows an editorial Celine wrote in Mr. Banks’ class about her experiences as a multilingual student of color who had previously been enrolled in the district’s ESL program. Crossing Linguistic, Cultural, and Institutional Boundaries in Schools Celine’s path into this untracked class was made possible when she passed the state’s English language proficiency exams, exited the school’s ESL program, and was re-classified as “formerly limited English proficient.” In Celine’s editorial she described how the transition from ESL to “regular classes” made her more aware of her race and the relationship between race and participation in college preparatory classes. She wrote that it was “lonely . . . sad, disappointing, and confusing” to be the only student of color in an academically demanding class. She further elaborated that it was frustrating to “feel that you are the only one there to defend your race, beliefs, and culture” and that she missed the multicultural environment of the ESL program where she felt “more comfortable and confident.” She added that her feelings of isolation were further aggravated by the lack of teachers of color and provided demographic data on the student population in the school. She concluded her editorial by asking readers to consider how racism is “happening every time I enter the classroom” and the effect this invisible form of discrimination had on students like her at Lincoln High. These feelings of profound otherness are common in multilingual “contact zones” in schools, especially in the context of globalization, where students’ linguistic and cultural resources meet, collide, and often go unrecognized as having value by other students, teachers, and administrators (Pratt, 1991, p. 31). Conflict can ensue when people move from one place to another and when, as a result, their meaning-making or semiotic practices come into contact with one another. Jan Blommaert (2010) describes the nature of this conflict, arguing that people— in this case Celine, her peers, and her teacher— manage or fail to make sense across contexts; their linguistic and communicative resources are mobile or lack such semiotic mobility, and this is a problem not just of difference, but of inequality. It is a problem exacerbated by the intensified processes of globalization. (p. 3) Blommaert further explains the meaning of “mobile semiotic resources” and provides a useful frame for reflecting on Celine’s experiences as an immigrant attending a U.S. high school. He argues that globalization entails the movement of people across spaces that have always been someone else’s. These spaces, Race, Immigration, and Literacy Development 29 especially schools, are “filled with norms, expectations, and conceptions of what counts as proper and normal . . . and what does not” (p. 6). Semiotic mobility in Celine’s case is her trajectory through stratified, controlled, and monitored tracks in high school where language always “gives you away” as being a particular kind of student in consequential ways (p. 6). Anyone who has attended or worked in a U.S. high school is made aware, sometimes tacitly and sometimes very explicitly, of how meaning-making resources, such as language, gestures, and dress, work in day-to-day school interactions to construct complex and shifting racial, ethnic, gendered, and class-based identities, which can be very consequential for students’ academic trajectories. Stated another way, Blommaert’s concept of semiotic mobility refers to how students use different varieties of oral language, writing styles, dress, gestures, and other meaning-making resources to signal their membership in different historically situated communities that have more or less power relative to other communities, especially when they attempt to cross linguistic, racial, ethnic, class, gendered, and religious cultural boundaries (see also Rampton, 2017). For example, Celine’s editorial signals her membership in the community of students of color and ELLs at Lincoln High, and her sense of isolation in college preparatory classes. Using Blommaert’s words, her language “gives her away” as coming from the institutionally marginalized space populated by multilingual students of color at Lincoln High as she moves into the college-bound track occupied by predominantly monolingual, English-speaking, middleclass, White students. This college-bound class is a space that has historically excluded immigrants like Celine on the assumption that they are not capable of participating in a challenging academic curriculum and should be provided a more remedial one based on their perceived lack of academic abilities (see Chapter Eight). A close linguistic analysis of Celine’s text also “gives her away” as having a strong political stance and as having been taught by teachers, like Mr. Banks, who encouraged her to voice her opinions in class as part of participating in democratic education. These teachers supported her in developing a level of English proficiency required to share her perspective in an extended piece of writing about a complex social issue. In addition, her text demonstrates that she is able to use a variety of tenses, including the third person “s” in the present tense (e.g., comes, makes), the irregular past tense (e.g., was, made), regular past tense (e.g., learned, liked, wanted), present progressive (e.g., is happening), and the future tense (e.g., will feel) to signal time and manage when events happened. For anyone who has studied a world language for many years, this level of language proficiency, especially in writing, represents a significant social, linguistic, and cognitive accomplishment. For example, research suggests that when language learners are asked to write extended texts, it is not uncommon for them to produce a series of short clauses loosely connected by the words and, so, or because (e.g., Gebhard, Chen, & Britton, 2014). To illustrate the 30 Race, Immigration, and Literacy Development difference, if Celine were less proficient in English, she might have produced a sentence similar to the one shown here: My name is Celine and I come from Portugal, and I am taking a journalism class and I am not in ESL and it is hard because I am the only person of color in this class. This more concrete noun-verb-noun pattern linked by words such as and and because is prevalent in language learner texts because it more closely matches the sentence patterns used in everyday conversations (e.g., Eggins & Slade, 2005). This pattern stands in contrast to the denser clause structures needed to construct disciplinary meanings in the types of texts students are required to read and write in upper elementary grades, secondary school, college, and higher paying jobs found in today’s post-industrial economy (e.g., Callahan & Gándara, 2014). Text/Context Dynamics Given that Celine is traversing a number of different contexts related to home, community, and peer worlds, including school, and eventually work, a critical social semiotic perspective of language, learning, and social change argues that she will need to expand the meaning-making resources she uses to construct everyday meanings as well as more discipline-specific ones (e.g., Fang & Schleppegrell, 2010). It should be noted at the outset of any discussion of linguistic variation that all oral, written, and multimodal meaning-making systems are highly complex, but they are complex in different ways because they accomplish different functions. For example, as illustrated in Table 2.1, at the “everyday” end of the spectrum, languages and gestures function to support interactions such as recounting the events of the day; learning how to play a new videogame with a friend; or participating in religious activities. These everyday uses of languages and other meaning-making systems are used to construct context-embedded meanings that differ from how discipline-specific language works to construct more decontextualized meanings. For example, technical language, equations, graphs, and tables are used to explain the results of a scientific study of local water quality, provide an explanation of high school dropout data, argue for a particular interpretation of a literary text, or enact a local campaign regarding a hotly contested political issue. Other differences between everyday and discipline-specific language practices involve language mixing and switching. Everyday, “here-and-now” language practices tend to afford more fluid possibilities for mixing varieties of languages, whereas disciplinary texts tend to privilege standardized, national varieties of language with selective use of code mixing and switching. The tendency toward TABLE 2.1 A Continuum of Differences Between Everyday and Disciplinary Multimodal/ Multilingual Texts Everyday Disciplinary (adapted from Eggins, 2004; Fang, 2014; Schleppegrell, 2004) Examples: Telling a story at a family event, making a “to do” list, posting to Facebook, teaching someone how to play a video game Less planned and more in the moment Greater use of varieties of languages and mixing of varieties of languages Greater varieties of roles and identities participants take up and move between in the flow of interaction (e.g., family member, friend, neighbor, acquaintance, co-worker) More interactive and greater use of gestures and intonation Greater use of everyday, concrete word choices Greater regularity in sentence structure (e.g., subject-verb-object) Greater use of body language to construct social distance and status dynamics Greater reliance on the conjunction and to connect clauses Use of video, pictures, icons, emojis, symbols, images, and sounds to construct meaning Examples: Writing a lab report in science, giving a PowerPoint presentation on a political issue, explaining the solution to a math problem on an exam, analyzing a poem Highly planned, revised, and edited in advance Greater use of standardized varieties of language with selective mixing of languages; greater use of disciplinespecific rhetorical patterns, sentence patterns, and word choices Fewer and more institutionally fixed roles and identities available to participants to take up and move between (e.g., student, teacher, administrator, policy maker) Less interactive and less use of gestures and intonation Greater use of very abstract, disciplinespecific words, phrases, and symbols Greater use of a variety of sentence structures to pack more information into sentences (e.g., longer noun, adverbial, and prepositional phrases; use of relative clauses, that clauses, and nominalizations*) Greater use of discipline-specific meaningmaking choices to construct social distance and authority (e.g., declarative sentences and use of action verbs as opposed to thinking and feeling verbs) Greater use of a greater variety of conjunctions to structure a text and convey specific relationships between clauses (e.g., however, furthermore, as a result, moreover, nonetheless) Greater use of discipline-specific formatting conventions and graphics to construct meaning (e.g., headings, charts, maps, equations, conceptual diagrams) * As described in more detail in Chapters Four and Five, nominalization is the process of a word that is not a noun being realized as a noun. For example, the verb to revolt can become the noun revolution. That noun can then be packed into a longer noun phrase that provides more information, such as the social, political, and economic revolution. 32 Race, Immigration, and Literacy Development cooperative and individual work is also an important difference. In the context of everyday interactions, people tend to share an understanding of the purpose of the interaction and often participate in activities in highly collaborative ways as opposed to individually. If there is a lack of understanding in an everyday interaction regarding how to accomplish a task, or if the language needed to accomplish the task is not shared, then people can shift from an oral explanation to one that uses drawings, diagrams, or charts; or from a more monolingual discussion to a multilingual one that draws on different languages; or from a technical to a more everyday way of explaining a difficult concept. They can also seek clarifications by asking questions, using facial expressions to signal confusion, or pointing to images or concrete objects in the immediate context to fill in information gaps. In this way, participants keep the negotiation of meaning moving forward, and complete the task jointly. Everyday interactions also tend to construct a wider range of complex, shifting social roles related to familiarity, social status, and identity that function to construct solidarity, exclusion, deference, and resistance. In contrast, disciplinary texts tend to construct more institutionally fixed, socially distant, and authoritative roles and identities (e.g., Kramsch, 1985). Therefore, disciplinary literacies, relative to everyday ones, tend to rely on abstract, discipline-specific vocabulary and dense grammatical constructions that are required to construct disciplinespecific ways of knowing, presenting oneself, and managing the flow of information. These grammatical constructions tend to pack more meaning into sentences through the use of long, abstract noun phrases, specific kinds of verbs, and the addition of prepositional and adverbial phrases (e.g., Christie & Derewianka, 2008). Disciplinary texts also tend to be much more decontextualized, meaning they do not rely on concrete objects, situational clues, or back and forth dialogue. Rather, language and other multimodal representations such as graphs and equations construct the context by packing meaning into each sentence or image so the representation has a better chance of being interpreted as a stand-alone act of communication. From this perspective, the word text refers to the wide range of multimodal representations that students engage with in their daily interactions in and out of school (Fairclough, 1989). These representations include talk, print, images, graphics, equations, charts, symbols, and emojis. Consider the following examples, which illustrate how this kind of meaningpacking can happen in a single sentence: 1. 2. 3. Learning disciplinary literacies presents multilinguals and their teachers with a challenge. Learning disciplinary literacies at the upper elementary and secondary levels of schooling presents multilinguals and their teachers with a challenge. Learning disciplinary literacies at the upper elementary and secondary levels of schooling in the context of current school reforms presents multilinguals and their teachers with a challenge. Race, Immigration, and Literacy Development 33 Notice how the subject of Sentence 1 (“learning disciplinary literacies”) can be packed with more information by adding a prepositional phrase (“at the upper elementary and secondary levels” as in Sentence 2), and even another prepositional phrase (“in the context of current school reforms” as in Sentence 3). For language learners who have not had much access, support, and practice in making sense of this kind of densely packed language, it is often difficult to make sense of who (the subject) is doing what (the verb) to whom (the object) and under what circumstances (prepositional and adverbial phrases that give information about time, manner, and place). This difficulty is intensified when the words refer to unfamiliar and abstract ideas as opposed to familiar and more concrete ones. Celine’s Educational Background Celine’s ability to use dense grammatical structures in writing about more abstract political ideas can also be attributed to a strong foundation in her home language. For example, Celine had the advantage of having attended school in Portugal where she learned to read and write in Portuguese. Studies regarding bilingualism have documented that previous formal schooling and disciplinary literacies in one’s home language are powerful resources for learning disciplinary concepts in an additional language (e.g., Hakuta, 2011). In middle school in the United States, Celine was also taught by a highly respected Spanish-English bilingual ESL teacher. In line with the research on bilingual education, this teacher encouraged Celine and other multilingual students to use their home language as a tool to make sense of new content despite the state’s official lack of support for bilingual education at the time. The district also provided Celine with Portuguese-English tutors from the community and content-based ESL instruction from fully licensed ESL teachers who were knowledgeable about second language learning theories and approaches to designing content-based language instruction. Finally, an analysis of Celine’s editorial suggests that she received instruction from teachers at Lincoln High who recognized that a student’s home language and culture are an integral part of a student’s identity as well as a valuable meaning-making resource that students can draw on in tackling challenging academic tasks (e.g., Dyson, 1993; García & Wei, 2014). For example, Mr. Banks, like many of Celine’s former teachers, expected and encouraged her to write extended texts about topics she knew something about and was invested in exploring for authentic purposes and audiences. In addition, Mr. Banks provided her with explicit instruction in how to organize an editorial using the course textbook and model texts he clipped out of newspapers. Celine used this explicit instruction and modeling as a guide to begin and end her paper with thoughtprovoking questions. In addition, she elaborated on her thesis about how her schooling experiences were making her more “aware of [her] race” by describing her feelings, providing demographic data on her school, and stating her academic 34 Race, Immigration, and Literacy Development goals for the future. She concluded her text with powerful insights regarding the consequences of the soft-touch racism she had experienced at Lincoln High. This high level of institutional support for multilinguals’ literacy development stands in stark contrast to studies of other school districts (e.g., Menken, 2008). These studies show that many ESL and content area teachers often deliberately delay introducing ELLs to reading and writing extended texts until they first demonstrate mastery of the English sound system and can write simple, grammatically correct sentences (e.g., Gebhard, 2002, 2004). This widely accepted approach to teaching listening, speaking, reading, and writing separately and in a lock-step fashion is based on a belief that literacy progresses from the mastery of sound and letter relationships to the development of high-frequency sight words, then to the ability to write simple sentences and controlled paragraphs, and eventually to the ability to comprehend and produce a structured five-paragraph essay. While this approach may seem like common sense given that it appears to proceed from apparently “simple” to more “complex” linguistic forms, research shows that it does not afford students the opportunity to draw on a broad range of social, cultural, linguistic, and cognitive resources when interacting with a challenging text for a meaningful purpose (e.g., Dyson, 1993). In contrast, studies of literacy development in and out of school have demonstrated that even very young children use images, talk, gestures, and print in overlapping ways with parents and teachers to construct meaning when interacting with texts that are way beyond their individual linguistic and cognitive abilities (e.g., bedtime stories, Heath, 1983). Other studies illustrate the powerful ways in which language learners of all ages are able to draw on their prior knowledge of a topic, anticipate and make predictions based on a variety of linguistic and graphic clues found in texts, and tap into their knowledge of how extended texts work based on how they have been socialized to use language and other meaning-making resources in both their home and additional languages (e.g., Dyson, 1993). Unfortunately, research has also demonstrated that when ELLs are not allowed to use their home language in school, are not provided with guidance in how to deconstruct a particular kind of text for a particular purpose, and do not have compelling reasons to invest in making sense of challenging reading and writing tasks, resistance and failure are often the result (e.g., Gutiérrez, Larson, & Kreuter, 1995). In contrast to studies that have documented the failure of many schools to support the disciplinary literacy development of ELLs, an analysis of Celine’s text and the context in which it was produced reveals a more promising set of contextual factors. These include Celine’s ability to read and write in Portuguese; her prior knowledge of academic content; her understanding of the social norms of formal education; and the instructional support she received from teachers who rejected deficit perspectives regarding what immigrant students, especially students of color, are capable of accomplishing in school. These factors supported Celine in exiting the district’s ESL program; scoring “proficient” on the state’s mandated exams in English language arts, math, and science; enrolling in college FIGURE 2.3 Celine’s editorial with Mr. Banks’ comments 36 Race, Immigration, and Literacy Development preparatory classes; and planning for her future with teachers and a guidance counselor who helped her navigate the college application process (e.g., taking college entrance exams, filling out college applications, looking for financial aid). Despite these gains, a review of Celine’s text also indicates that she will likely have considerable trouble reading and writing the dense disciplinary texts she will encounter in college should she be able to gain admittance and afford the prohibitive costs of college tuition. To achieve proficiency in reading and writing dense disciplinary texts and perhaps be eligible for certain scholarships, Celine will need to learn how to develop the content of her texts more fully (i.e., the ideational function of language), construct herself as someone who knows how to interpret data critically in making concrete calls for action (i.e., the interpersonal function of language), and weave her ideas together cohesively and strategically into compelling arguments that move beyond her personal experiences in communicating with wider audiences (i.e., the textual function of language). However, most teachers do not have an explicit understanding of how language works to make meaning in the types of texts they routinely require students to read and write in their classes (e.g., Gebhard, Chen, Graham, & Gunawan, 2013). As a result, most teachers do not know how to effectively respond to student writing, especially texts produced by ELLs (e.g., Ferris, 2003). This inability is reflected in the comments Mr. Banks made on Celine’s two-page editorial as shown in Figure 2.3. Mr. Banks’ Feedback A review of Mr. Banks’ comments shows that he, like many hardworking teachers, exerted a good deal of time and effort in responding to Celine’s text. Based on classroom observations and informal interviews with Mr. Banks, his intention was to support Celine in producing a compelling editorial, while also encouraging her to develop a sense of herself as a writer. However, as anyone who has spent time grading stacks of student papers knows, responding to student writing is challenging and time-consuming work that can leave both teachers and students deeply dissatisfied. Teachers do not know what kind of feedback to provide when there seem to be an infinite number of problems to address regarding organization, sentence structure, verb tenses, word choices, spelling, and punctuation. And students cannot always decipher the comments teachers diligently make, nor do students know how they should use these margin comments, if they can decipher them, in revising their texts (e.g., Ferris, 2003). Because Mr. Banks lacked professional preparation in working with ELL writers, he was not sure where to begin in giving Celine feedback, but wanted to be comprehensive and encouraging. And Celine most likely scanned his feedback quickly, saw that she had scored a high mark, and moved on to other homework assignments thinking all was well. Moreover, even if Celine had been required to revise this text, she most likely would not have known how to use Mr. Banks’ feedback, which included correcting aspects of punctuation; Race, Immigration, and Literacy Development 37 adding words and phrases in between the lines and in the margins; and crossing out words, phrases, and entire paragraphs. From Celine’s perspective, it most likely would also have been unclear why Mr. Banks thought some linguistic choices were more appropriate than others (e.g., hail instead of come from; uses of the pronoun I versus you) or why whole paragraphs describing her painful schooling experiences were considered extraneous (e.g., “But would you ever think that its racism happening every time I enter the classroom? . . . Am I the only one that is willing to challenge myself?”). In the end, like many students, she may have made surface edits and resubmitted the paper, but most likely would not have developed a deeper understanding of how language works to build content information about abstract topics or how to weave information together across a text coherently to achieve a broader range of purposes in writing for an expanded audience. Rethinking the Word “Grammar” From an SFL Perspective Faced with this all-too-common scenario, many educators are asking what kind of professional development opportunities might enable dedicated teachers, like Mr. Banks, to respond more productively to students’ texts and provide students, like Celine, with more targeted feedback and instruction. And further, how can teachers better support all students in being able to read, write, and critique challenging disciplinary texts for authentic academic and political purposes? A critical perspective of SFL offers teachers a different way of approaching disciplinary literacy teaching in that it provides a fundamentally different way of thinking about “grammar” than the traditional views that have historically informed the teaching and learning of languages (e.g., Gebhard & Martin, 2011). For example, some teachers, based on their own learning experiences, tend to conceptualize language as a set of formal rules that govern sounds, words, sentences, and essay structures. Other teachers tend to ignore formal aspect of students’ language development based on the assumption that a student’s ability to speak, read, and write in different disciplines will develop more or less naturally and that too much attention to grammar can actually interfere with a student’s innate biologically driven capacity to acquire a second language (e.g., Krashen, 1985). As will be discussed in Chapter Three, it is important to note that an SFL perspective of language does not discount the importance of direct instruction in formal aspects of how language works, nor does it discount the fact that all children are endowed with the astounding capacity to develop highly complex linguistic systems in their home language(s) and additional languages without any formal instruction before they enter school. However, SFL differs greatly from form-focused and purely cognitive orientations to language teaching in one highly significant way: critical SFL pedagogy pays much greater attention to the social, historical, and political dynamics that exist between a text, like Celine’s editorial, and the context in which an 38 Race, Immigration, and Literacy Development individual, like Celine, develops an ability to read and write challenging texts over time in institutions such as schools. In this respect, SFL does not view language as a set of fixed formal rules that teachers should drill and practice, nor does it view language as a purely cognitive capacity that will develop by itself. Rather, SFL attempts to explain how the meaning-making resources available to learners expand as they cognitively and socially mature over time. This expanded repertoire extends the range of functions learners perform with language and other meaning-making systems in the contexts in which they interact – first within their homes and communities as young children, then in different content areas as they progress from elementary to secondary school, and later as they join the civil society and the world of work as adults. As will be explained in greater detail in subsequent chapters, this contextsensitive perspective of disciplinary literacy development makes clear that learning is a social process that takes place in the home, in school, and at work through the kinds of interactions and relationships we have with others and the beliefs, values, and ideologies that are constructed through these interactions. Halliday and Hasan (1985) capture the contextual nature of language and learning in social institutions in the following way: Learning is, above all, a social process; and the environment in which educational learning takes place is that of a social institution, whether we think of this in concrete terms as the classroom and the school, with their clearly defined social structures, or in the more abstract sense of the school system, or even the educational process as it is conceived of in our society. Knowledge is transmitted in social contexts, through relationships, like those of a parent and child, or a teacher and pupil, or classmates, that are defined in the value systems and ideologies of the culture. And the words that are exchanged in these contexts get their meaning from activities in which they are embedded, which again are social activities with social agencies and goals. (p. 5) This expansive conception of text/context dynamics in social and ideological institutions like schools will be explored in greater detail in the chapters that follow. In addition, these chapters will outline concrete pedagogical steps designed to support teachers like Mr. Banks and students like Celine and will be illustrated with samples of teachers’ approaches to designing curriculum and analyses of students’ literacy practices in different contexts. Summary This chapter provided a brief case study of the schooling experiences and literacy development of a student named Celine who immigrated from Portugal and attended a diverse high school in Massachusetts. A research team, including pre-service teachers, analyzed how programs and practices supported Celine and Race, Immigration, and Literacy Development 39 other students in: (1) learning new content knowledge (the ideational function of language); (2) constructing new roles and identities through their use of language and other meaning-making resources (the interpersonal function of language); and (3) managing the cohesive and coherent flow of their ideas in extended texts written to signal their membership in different historically situated communities that have more or less status and power relative to other communities (the textual function of language). However, when Celine attempted to enroll in a collegetrack journalism class, her teacher was not prepared to provide her with feedback on her writing in ways that contributed to her ability to write journalistically using the language typical of a newspaper editorial. This chapter argued that a critical SFL perspective can offer teachers a different way of approaching the teaching of disciplinary literacy practices by providing them with a fundamentally different conception of “grammar” than the ones that have historically informed education. Specifically, SFL suggests that disciplinary literacies, relative to everyday ones, rely on technical vocabulary and dense grammatical constructions to construct subjectspecific ways of knowing. Therefore, a background in SFL can support teachers in responding more productively to students’ texts and providing students with more targeted feedback and instruction to support all students in being able to read, write, and critique challenging disciplinary texts for authentic academic and political purposes (e.g., see Gebhard, Accurso, & Chen, 2019, for a review of empirical studies regarding teachers’ uses of SFL-informed pedagogies).2 Praxis Making a Plan for Collecting Qualitative Case Study Data Depending on the configuration of your research group, gaining access and permission to conduct a case study of a learner will take time and require adhering to specific school and university policies regarding visiting schools and conducting classroom observations. Therefore, it is best to gain access to a classroom as soon as possible. In addition, it is important to protect both students’ and teachers’ confidentiality by using pseudonyms for students, teachers, and schools. It is equally important to ensure students’ learning is not interrupted and teachers’ workloads are not added to by case study research activities (see Bogdan & Biklen, 2003; Dyson & Genishi, 2005 for a discussion of ethical issues in conducting qualitative research). Task Directions and Topics for Discussion 1. To begin developing a case study of a multilingual student’s literacy practices modeled after Celine’s, at least one person should plan on conducting a minimum of three to five classroom observations over several weeks, or more depending on your group’s goals and the extent of your project. During 40 Race, Immigration, and Literacy Development these observations, data collection can take a number of forms depending on the nature of your access. Minimally, your group should collect the following information, which is typically available online or can be collected on site through your pre-practicum, practicum, or work experiences. Note that the collection of these data can also support the completion of various tasks required by most licensure programs. • • • • Demographic information regarding the community and the school (typically available online, see also Chapters Six and Nine) Information regarding various local, state, and national standards (typically available online, see also Chapters Six, Seven, and Nine) Curriculum frameworks or guides (typically available online or can be obtained through informal interviews with teachers) A description of the type of instruction the district or the school provides for students designated as ELLs (e.g., dual bilingual education, transition bilingual education, ESL pull out, ESL push in, Sheltered English Immersion, see Chapter Six; typically available online or can be obtained through informal interviews with teachers) • • • Information regarding how students are identified as ELLs and how they are assigned to specific programs in a school (see Chapter Six) Field notes from observations • • • Be aware that program names, descriptions in policy documents, and what actually happens in classrooms do not always match up cleanly for a host of complicated reasons related to the institutional capacity of schools and historically weak investments in teacher education. In writing field notes, it is important to describe in careful detail what you see and hear, not evaluate students, teachers, and schools based on too little information. For example, describe the layout of the school and where classes for ELLs are located; the layout of the classroom and the nature of resources available in classrooms (e.g., technology, reference materials, school supplies); the number of students assigned to the class; and information regarding students’ race, class, gender, language(s), and countries of origin as it becomes available. However, please note that issues of identity are always complex and need to be approached carefully (e.g., Celine identified as Black, but not African American). Samples of curricular materials (e.g., class handouts, worksheets, reading materials, see Chapter Five and Nine) Samples of student work, especially writing samples (see Chapter Five and Nine) Race, Immigration, and Literacy Development 41 If possible, depending on your level of access and the goals of your project, your group might also attempt to collect the following types of data. • • • • Samples of assessments of student work (see Chapter Nine) Interviews with classroom teachers about their experience working with ELLs (see Chapter Nine) Interviews with students about their learning experiences (see Chapter Nine) Interviews with parents and/or community representatives about their experiences with public schools. Please note that in conducting this type of fieldwork it is important to respect the time and privacy of teachers and students. Before collecting information beyond what is readily available online and through observations, consider whether additional data is necessary to address your group’s research questions. 2. Make a plan for collecting data using Table 2.A to guide your work. TABLE 2.A Qualitative Case Study Data Collection Plan QUALITATIVE CASE STUDY DATA COLLECTION PLAN (adapted from Bogdan & Biklen, 2003; Dyson, 1993; Dyson & Genishi, 2005) Data to be collected Responsible person Date needed Notes (links, names of contacts, and the like) Demographics Standards Curriculum frameworks Type of language programs for students Placement information Fieldnotes Sample curriculum Samples of student work Assessments Interview with teacher(s) Interviews with student(s) Interviews with parents and/ or community members Notes 1 This course met the standards for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) and the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). The pre-service teachers who collected and analyzed data used in this chapter include Rachel Hoogstaten, Na Lin, Hanni Thoma, Pierre Tiberi, and Lin Wu. 42 Race, Immigration, and Literacy Development 2 Findings regarding these benefits of SFL pedagogies have been substantiated by largescale quantitative analyses of student learning outcomes following SFL-based interventions, as well as small qualitative case studies of teachers’ uses of SFL tools in different content areas (e.g., Accurso, Gebhard, & Purington, 2017; Aguirre-Muñoz, Park, Amabisca, & Boscardin, 2008; Brisk, Hodgson-Drysdale, & O’Connor, 2011; Gebhard, Chen, Graham, & Gunawan, 2013; Humphrey & Macnaught, 2016; Schleppegrell & de Oliveira, 2006; Schleppegrell, Greer, & Taylor, 2008). References Accurso, K., Gebhard, M., & Purington, S. (2017). Analyzing diverse learners’ writing in mathematics: Systemic functional linguistics in secondary pre-service teacher education. International Journal of Mathematics Teaching & Learning, 18(1), 84–108. Aguirre-Muñoz, Z., Park, J., Amabisca, A., & Boscardin, C. (2008). Developing teacher capacity for serving ELLs’ writing instructional needs. Bilingual Research Journal, 31(1–2), 295–323. Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bogdan R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (4th ed.). New York: Pearson. Brisk, M.E., Hodgson-Drysdale, T., & O’Connor, C. (2011). A study of a collaborative instructional project informed by SFL theory: Report writing in elementary grades. Journal of Education, 191(1), 1–12. Callahan, R.M., & Gándara, P.C. (Eds.). (2014). The bilingual advantage: Language, literacy and the U.S. labor market (Vol. 99). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling. London: Continuum. de Jong, E.J. (2011). Foundations for multilingualism in education: From principles to practice. Philadelphia: Caslon. Dyson, A.H. (1993). Social worlds of children: Learning to write in an urban primary school. New York: Teachers College Press. Dyson, A.H., & Genishi, C. (2005). On the case (Vol. 76). New York: Teachers College Press. Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2nd ed.). New York: Continuum. Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (2005). Analyzing casual conversation. London: Equinox. Fang, Z. (2014). Preparing content area teachers for disciplinary literacy instruction: The role of literacy teacher educators. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 57(6), 444–448. Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M.J. (2010). Disciplinary literacies across content areas: Supporting secondary reading through functional language analysis. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(7), 587–597. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. New York: Longman. Ferris, D.R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Gebhard, M. (2002). Getting past “see Spot run.” Education Leadership, 60(4), 35–39. Gebhard, M. (2004). Fast capitalism, school reform, and second language literacy practices. Modern Language Journal, 88(2), 245–265. Race, Immigration, and Literacy Development 43 Gebhard, M., Accurso, K., & Chen, I. (2019). Paradigm shifts in the teaching of grammar in K-12 ESL/EFL contexts: A case for a social semiotic perspective. In L.C. de Oliveira (Ed.), Handbook of TESOL in K-12. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Gebhard, M., Chen, I., & Britton, L. (2014). “Miss, nominalization is a nominalization”: English language learners’ use of SFL metalanguage and their literacy practices. Linguistics and Education, 26, 106–125. Gebhard, M., Chen, I., Graham, H., & Gunawan, W. (2013). Teaching to mean, writing to mean: SFL, L2 literacy, and teacher education. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(2), 107–124. Gebhard, M., & Martin, J. (2011). Grammar and literacy learning. In D. Lapp & D. Fisher (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 297–304). New York: Routledge. Gutiérrez, K., Larson, J., & Kreuter, B. (1995). Cultural tensions in the scripted classroom: The value of the subjugated perspective. Urban Education, 29(4), 410–422. Hakuta, K. (2011). Educating language minority students and affirming their equal rights: Research and practical perspectives. Educational Researcher, 40(4), 163–174. Halliday, M.A.K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5(2), 93–116. Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social semiotic perspective. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press. Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Humphrey, S., & Macnaught, L. (2016). Functional language instruction and the writing growth of English language learners in the middle years. TESOL Quarterly, 50(4), 792–816. Kramsch, C. (1985). Classroom interaction and discourse options. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7(2), 169–183. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman. Menken, K. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Toronto: Multilingual Matters. Pratt, M.L. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. Profession, 91, 33–40. Rampton, B. (2017). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. New York: Routledge. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schleppegrell, M.J., & de Oliveira, L. (2006). An integrated language and content approach for history teachers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(4), 254–268. Schleppegrell, M.J., Greer, S., & Taylor, S. (2008). Literacy in history: Language and meaning. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31(2), 174–187. 3 SKINNER, CHOMSKY, AND HALLIDAY Shifting Conceptions of Grammar and Language Learning When I think of the word grammar, I think of nouns, verbs, adjectives, and things like that—I am not sure what they have to do with teaching math. –“Hunter Reed,” pre-service secondary math teacher When I learned Spanish in middle and high school, I had to memorize a lot of vocabulary and grammar rules. I got mostly A’s, but I still can’t speak it or really use it even after studying it for years. –“Peter Green,” pre-service secondary science teacher It really bugs me when people have bad grammar. We need to get back to the basics and learn proper English. –“George Williams,” pre-service secondary history teacher I think grammar is waste of time. I never was taught grammar, and I have always loved reading and writing. If anything, I think it gets in the way of me communicating and being creative. –“Alexandra Costa,” pre-service secondary English language arts teacher Pre-service secondary teachers made these comments when I asked them to respond to the word “grammar” and the role of grammar instruction in the teaching and learning of languages and literacy practices in school. Their comments are representative of how many teachers have been socialized to think about grammar based on their educational experiences (e.g., Borg, 2015). For Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday 45 example, traditional grammar, which is closely tied to the study of Latin, Greek, rhetoric, and logic, was taught in what used to be called grammar schools. The remnants of this tradition are what many of us associate with learning parts of speech, diagramming sentences, and prescriptive rules regarding linguistic correctness (Christie, 1993). These parts of speech are used in edicts such as don’t split an infinitive, don’t end a sentence with a preposition, don’t begin a sentence with a conjunction, and never use the first-person pronoun ‘I’ in academic writing. Not surprisingly, these beliefs and practices have given the word “grammar” a bad name, and for good reason. These edicts for “proper” or “appropriate” language use take the focus of instruction off meaning and communication, impose arbitrary rules of correctness that accomplished writers do not always follow, do not necessarily lead to greater fluency and higher quality writing, and stigmatize varieties of languages used by racialized minorities and working-class people (e.g., Flores & Rosa, 2015; Godley, Carpenter, & Werner, 2007). As a result, several influential literacy experts maintain that explicit grammar instruction should be removed from the curriculum regardless of whether instruction is for first or second language learners (e.g., Elbow, 1973; Krashen, 1987). This situation has created a challenge for educators trying to inject critical awareness of language into schools to support teachers and students in analyzing how languages and other multimodal systems, such as images, graphs, and equations, work in the types of texts students routinely encounter in elementary school, secondary school, and the workplace (e.g., New London Group, 1996). With these transitions in mind, literacy researchers from the University of Sydney began collaborating with classroom teachers working in disadvantaged schools in Australian in the 1980s (e.g., Rose & Martin, 2012). The purpose of this collaboration was to explore how teachers could benefit from rethinking grammar from a meaning-making perspective drawing on Michael Halliday’s systemic functional linguistics (SFL). Since then, SFL scholarship has expanded dramatically to include a focus on the development of disciplinary literacies across grade levels, in different content areas, in different languages, and in diverse policy contexts (e.g., de Silva Joyce & Feez, 2016). In the United States, a growing number of SFL researchers are collaborating with K-12 teachers to use this meaning-oriented and context-sensitive perspective of grammar to design curriculum, instruction, and assessments in response to the demands of school reforms (e.g., Brisk, 2014; de Oliveira & Iddings, 2014; Fang & Schleppegrell, 2008; Gebhard & Harman, 2011). These researchers are not advocating a “back to the basics” approach to teaching grammar as called for by George Williams, the pre-service history teacher quoted at the beginning of the chapter. Nor do they call for a return to rote learning of formal structures as represented by the voices of other pre-service teachers who described their language learning experiences as shaped by “drill,” “memorization,” and the learning of decontextualized grammar “rules.” Rather, SFL scholars in the 46 Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday United States hope to support teachers in systematically and functionally expanding, not replacing, the meaning-making repertoires of all students so that all students have a better chance of being able to navigate the multiple cultural contexts they participate in or desire to enter over the course of their lives. For example, in Chapter Two, Celine confronted challenges as she tried to navigate the diverse language practices, associated cultures, and identities attached to being an immigrant of color attending a U.S. high school. Celine spoke Portuguese at home with family; varieties of English, Spanish, and African American English with peers; and standardized English with teachers. She also pushed herself to learn academic varieties of English that she knew were more readily available in honors classes than in other, lower tracks in her high school. However, her journalism teacher, Mr. Banks, like many teachers, lacked an explicit knowledge of how language works in the types of texts he routinely assigned students to read and write in his class. He was therefore unable to make the workings of journalistic language visible, open to critical reflection, and usable to students who were new to reading, writing, and critically discussing genres such as editorials. As a result, despite the high motivation and commitment of both Celine and Mr. Banks, Celine did not publish anything for a wider audience in the school or local newspaper. To avoid outcomes such as these, SFL practitioners attempt to support the disciplinary literacies of all students, especially those who come from historically marginalized groups. To assist teachers in working toward this aim, this chapter provides a brief overview of three different conceptions of grammar that have influenced language teaching and learning practices in schools (e.g., de Silva Joyce & Feez, 2016). These perspectives are rooted in the work of B.F. Skinner, who understood grammar as a form of verbal behavior that is learned through drill and practice; Noam Chomsky, who theorized grammar development as an innate cognitive process that occurs through natural interactions; and Michael Halliday, who conceptualized grammar as a functional meaning-making system that expands to reflect and construct the cultural contexts in which it is used. In addition, this chapter describes how these three perspectives influence classroom interactions or discourse practices in ways that support or constrain students in developing language, learning new content knowledge, and expanding the range of identities available to them in school (e.g., Cazden, 1988; Christie, 2005; Kramsch, 1985).1 The questions this chapter explores are: • • • What is “grammar” and how have different theoretical conceptions of grammar influenced the teaching and learning of language and literacy in schools (e.g., behavioral, psycholinguistic, and social semiotic approaches)? What are the characteristics of an SFL or social semiotic perspective of grammar and how does it differ from other prevailing conceptions? What do different perspectives of grammar look like in classroom practice and how has each perspective been critiqued? Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday 47 Skinner: A Behavioral Perspective Language Is a Behavior and Learning Is Accomplished Through Drill and Practice A Skinnerian perspective of language and language learning maintains that language is a form of observable behavior and that verbal and written behaviors are learned through drill and practice in the use of correct linguistic forms (see Lightbown & Spada, 2013 for a review). Within this paradigm, the role of the classroom teacher tends to be oriented toward providing rewards such as praise, grades, and other tokens to reinforce formal grammatical correctness. In U.S. schools, the influence of this perspective is reflected in programs that drill and practice phonemic awareness, high-frequency sight words, sentence patterns, linguistically controlled reading passages, and highly structured writing tasks at the near exclusion of other aspects of literacy development such as inferencing, interpreting, critically reflecting, and engaging with texts for fun (e.g., August & Shanahan, 2006). Behavioral Perspective of Grammar in Classroom Discourse Practices The following classroom interaction illustrates a behavioral perspective of ESL teaching (Chaudron, 1988, p. 38): 1. Teacher: The plural for number five, Lisa. 2. Lisa: What is this– 3. Teacher: Plural! 4. Lisa: What are these. These are books. 5. Teacher: Very good! Very good! Alright, if I said, uh, this is a man. What would be the plural? 6. Student: These are men. M-E-N. 7. Teacher: Good! Good memory! In this interaction, the teacher is helping beginning ELLs work through a set of workbook exercises focusing on pluralizing English nouns (e.g., book/books, man/men) and rewarding students for correct responses with praise (e.g., “Very good!” and “Good!” in lines 5 and 7). In this interaction, the focus of instruction is not on learning language through discussion of a high-interest topic or a critical analysis of the linguistic choices found in a text, but on drilling and practicing a discrete grammar rule regarding forming plurals in standardized English. Many of us who have learned an additional language in school are very familiar with this pattern of classroom interaction. The teacher initiates an interaction by asking a question with a single, known, correct answer, as illustrated in line 1. The student responds with a form-focused answer, as shown in line 4. And 48 Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday the teacher evaluates the student’s response in regard to its grammatical correctness, as in line 5. This pattern has been described by classroom discourse analysts as an Initiation-Response-Evaluation or IRE pattern of classroom talk. Research shows that this pattern is highly prevalent not only in language classrooms, but in many pedagogical situations, revealing the degree to which schools tend to value a behavioral perspective of learning (e.g., Cazden, 1988). This perspective is reflected in the comments of two pre-service teachers introduced in the beginning of this chapter. Recall George Williams’ assertion that teachers should get “back to the basics” so students can learn “the rules of proper English.” Likewise, Peter Green, a pre-service science teacher, described how he had to “memorize a lot of vocabulary and grammar rules” when he was being taught a national variety of Spanish spoken in Spain (as opposed to a Latin American variety). Chomsky: A Psycholinguistic Perspective Language Is Rule-Governed Creativity and Language Acquisition Is Innate Alexandra Costa, another pre-service teacher quoted at the beginning of this chapter, rejected a behavioral conception of grammar, claiming that grammar drills are a “waste of time” and interfere with “communicating” and “being creative.” This sentiment is common in the field of English language arts and reflects a movement away from the explicit teaching of grammar rules and text structures, based in part on the revolutionary ideas of psycholinguist Noam Chomsky. Chomsky (1965) refuted Skinner’s conception of language as a form of verbal behavior and put forth a psycholinguistic explanation of language and language development. In making a case against behaviorism, Chomsky noted that very young speakers of all languages are able to develop a highly sophisticated linguistic system without ever being taught all the grammatical rules of their home language or languages (see Lightbown & Spada, 2013 for a review). For example, in regard to tense systems, young children are able to signal different aspects of time without ever having been provided with formal explanations or drill and practice in how different tenses work in the languages they speak. As illustrated in Table 3.1, standardized English has twelve distinct ways of constructing and shaping speakers’ intuitive conceptions of time. These ways are different from other languages and varieties of English that have either fewer or more elaborate ways of marking aspects of time. African American English, for example, has more nuanced ways of constructing aspects of the present tense than standardized English (e.g., “They be playing soccer during recess,” Green, 2002, p. 220). In addition, Chomskyan scholars note that children tend to overgeneralize grammatical rules in ways that suggest their grammatical competence develops more or less on its own (Roeper, 2007). For example, if a child produced TABLE 3.1 Twelve Ways English Constructs Time Through its Tense System Graphic representation of the grammatical construction of time Name of tense and its uses English examples Simple present or “habitual” tense to convey that a process is habitual, repeats, or occurs regularly. Simple past to convey that a process occurred at a defined moment or time period in the past. Simple future to make claims about a process that will occur later or to make a promise or prediction. Present continuous or “now tense” to make claims about processes occurring at the present moment or during a stretch of time (e.g., this second, this week, this year). Past continuous to express an ongoing process in the past or an ongoing action that was interrupted. • Future continuous to express an ongoing process in the future or an ongoing process that gets interrupted. • Present perfect to express that a process has been experienced, or has been completed during an unspecified time. Past perfect to express that a process was completed in the past before another in the past. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I study Spanish every day. She plays soccer on Tuesdays. I studied Spanish yesterday. She played soccer when she was younger. I will study Spanish tomorrow. She will play soccer next Tuesday. I am studying Spanish now. She is playing soccer this season. I was studying Spanish in the library when the fire alarm went off. She was playing soccer until it began to rain. I will be studying Spanish in college until I go abroad. She will be playing soccer until the season ends. I have studied Spanish. She has played soccer in a league before. I had studied Spanish before I went to Puerto Rico. She had played soccer for a number of years when she was asked to go professional. (Continued) 50 Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday TABLE 3.1 (Continued) Graphic representation of the grammatical construction of time Name of tense and its uses English examples Future perfect to express the idea that a process will be completed at a future time often before another process. • Present perfect continuous to express duration for an ongoing process taking place now and continuing. • Past perfect continuous to express duration for an ongoing process that completed in the past at a specific time or before another process. Often there is the implication that one event caused or is the result of another. Future perfect continuous to express duration for an ongoing process up to a point of time in the future or before another process in the future. • • • • • • I will have studied Spanish for four years by the time I am 18. I will have played my soccer match before it gets dark. I have been studying Spanish for three years. She has been playing soccer for as long as her brother. I had been studying Spanish for many years when I entered college. I had been playing soccer for four years before I began to play professionally. I will have been studying Spanish for six years by the time I move to Puerto Rico. I will have been playing soccer professionally for 15 years by the time I retire. the utterance, We goed to Abuela’s house and a parent responded, Yes, we went to Abuela’s, a child might reply, Yep, we wented, despite never having heard wented from others. Chomskyan linguists analyze novel grammatical constructions such as these as evidence that children have an underlying grammatical capacity to signal that an event occurred at a specific point in the past using the morphological word ending -ed, even though children cannot tell you what a verb is, explain the differences between a regular and an irregular verb (e.g., talk/talked, go/went), or tell you what the difference is between the simple past and the past progressive (I went versus I was going). Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday 51 Moreover, as anyone who enjoys playing with language is aware, the ability to creatively invent an infinite number of novel utterances using a finite number of underlying grammar rules does not end with childhood. For example, consider Chomsky’s (1957, p. 15) famous example of how speakers are able to process creative grammatical constructions such as “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously,” even though this sentence does not logically make sense given that something cannot be green and colorless, ideas do not sleep, and the word “furious” is more associated with insomnia than rest. However, we are able to make sense of this unique, syntactically related set of words because we have an intuitive understanding of English grammar—and we may admire the poetry of such a novel utterance. Another often cited example in support of a Chomskyan perspective of language processing is an English speaker’s ability to make sense of the seemingly nonsensical creative utterances found in Lewis Carroll’s “Jabberwocky” poem (as cited in Pinker, 1994). This narrative poem, which was included in the sequel to Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, uses a slew of invented words to tell the story of how a mythical beast called the Jabberwock was killed. These words are still understandable (or at least guessable) to users of English because Carroll cleverly uses English syntax and morphological endings2 to signal grammatical categories on invented nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs, as in this excerpt from the poem: ’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. (Pinker, 1994, p. 89) It is important to note that creative grammatical constructions are not limited to the musings of famous authors, but are part an everyday part of generating new ways of knowing and constructing one’s cultural identity through language. For example, hip-hop artists have made powerful linguistic and cultural contributions to how youth use varieties of language worldwide (e.g., Alim, Ibrahim, & Pennycook, 2009). Also consider the way technologies have produced new verbs such as to google, tweet, and text. Moreover, these new verbs have also generated new nouns to express new social, cultural, and political problems such as google bombing, tweet storming, and sexting. Based on insights such as these, psycholinguists argue that the mind is not a blank slate as behaviorists claim. Rather, they maintain humans have evolutionarily developed a distinctive form of cognition that works to process linguistic data in ways that are akin to the way computers process information. These scholars maintain that this linguistic-specific form of cognition is different from other forms of cognition, such as memory, because it enables humans to process linguistic input, formulate linguistic output, and tacitly generate the rules for a 52 Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday specific language following generative grammar rules or parameters that govern all human languages. Chomsky (1986) called these parameters “universal grammar” and described this distinctively human capacity using the metaphor of a “language acquisition device” (p. 3). Based in part on Chomsky’s groundbreaking ideas, the 1980s saw a rejection of traditional grammar and behaviorist approaches to teaching grammar rules. For example, Stephen Krashen’s influential natural approach to second language acquisition encourages teachers to design lessons to support students in naturally acquiring, rather than consciously learning, grammatical forms (Krashen, 1987). In other words, rather than memorizing grammar rules and drilling linguistic patterns, Krashen maintains teachers should support students in participating in communicative activities such as playing games, singing songs, reading for pleasure, and freewriting to generate ample amounts of linguistic input and output for the brain’s language centers to process. Krashen also argues that focusing too much attention on grammatical correction interferes with students’ innate ability to develop linguistic competence because it results in learners overly monitoring their linguistic input and output, and thereby raising what he called the affective filter. Krashen (1987) hypothesizes that this metaphorical filter blocks linguistic data from being processed by a learner’s language acquisition device, as described by Chomsky. Psycholinguistic Perspective of Grammar in Classroom Discourse Practices The following classroom interaction illustrates a Chomskyan or psycholinguistic approach to ESL instruction (Lightbown & Spada, 2013, p. 132, bold added for emphasis): 1. Student: 2. Teacher: 3. Student: 4. Teacher: 5. Student: 6. Teacher: 7. Student: 8. Teacher: 9. Student: It bugs me when a bee sting me. Oh, when a bee stings me. Stings me. Do you get stung often? Does that happen often? The bee stinging many times? Yeah. Often? (teacher turns to students who aren’t paying attention). OK. Sandra and Benoit, you may begin working on a research project, hey? (teacher turns her attention back to ‘What bugs me?’) It bugs me XXX (not decipherable) and my sister put on my clothes. Ah! She borrows your clothes—When you’re older, you may appreciate it because you can switch clothes, maybe. (teacher turns to check another student’s written work). Melanie, this is yours, I will check– OK. It’s good. It bugs me when I’m sick and my brother doesn’t help me– my– my brother, cause he– me–. Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday 53 10. Teacher: OK. You know– when XXX (not decipherable) sick, you’re sick at home in bed and you say, oh, to your brother or your sister: ‘Would you please get me a drink of water?’ – ‘Ah! Drop dead!’ you know, ‘Go play in traffic!’ You know, it’s not very nice. Martin! 11. Student: It bug me to have– 12. Teacher: It bugs me. It bugzz me. 13. Student: It bugs me when my brother takes my bicycle. In this interaction, ten-year-old ELLs have been asked to discuss the topic “What bugs you?” The interaction is intended to be more communicative as it focuses on discussing a topic that might be of interest to students rather than drilling and practicing a specific grammar rule such as the formation of plurals. The teacher asks an authentic question as opposed to ones that require students to display an understanding of a grammar rule (e.g., “Does this happen often?” in line 4). The teacher also elaborates on students’ responses as a way of indirectly teaching vocabulary (e.g., “Ah! She borrows your clothes” in line 8). With reference to grammatical errors, the teacher recasts students’ responses, sometimes with emphasis, to indirectly call their attention to a grammatical form. However, the teacher keeps the focus of the interaction on the topic as a way of generating comprehensible input, practice, and feedback to support the development of linguistic competence. This pattern is evident in lines 1 to 3 where the teacher provides indirect feedback regarding the use of the present tense “s” to support the student in generating the verb form “stings,” as well as in lines 11 to 13 when she draws attention to the verb form “bugs.” In addition, the teacher indirectly calls attention to an underlying phonological rule in English regarding the pronunciation of “s” after a consonant that is voiced (e.g., b, d, g, m, n) as opposed to a consonant that is unvoiced (e.g., p, t, k). This underlying phonological rule of standardized English is one the teacher may or may not be aware of depending on her knowledge of linguistics (e.g., /bug/ + /s/ = bugz). Psycholinguistic Approaches to Teaching Writing: The Process Approach Chomsky’s theories have also influenced how writing is taught in U.S. schools. For example, within the field of composition studies, scholars such as Peter Elbow suggest too much focus on formal correctness contributes to writer’s block, feelings of insecurity, an inability of students to discover their thoughts and be creative, and eventually a strong dislike of writing. As a result of Elbow’s (1973) influential book Writing Without Teachers and compelling research produced by scholars in composition studies, teachers are often encouraged to adopt a process approach to teaching reading and writing (e.g., Atwell, 1987). This approach encourages teachers to assume a facilitator role in the classroom and 54 Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday avoid explicitly teaching rhetorical structures, sentence-level grammar, spelling, and punctuation until they first support students in discovering and honing their thoughts through a recursive process that involves: • • • • • • Pre-writing activities such as freewriting, brainstorming, and creating wordwebs to help students discover topics and ideas. Drafting to support students in exploring and developing their thinking through the act of writing, reading, and re-writing. Getting feedback from peers and teachers to support students in re-thinking how they approach producing a text for a particular purpose and audience. Making revisions to the content and structure of a text based on the feedback they receive from peers and teachers. Editing texts to address targeted mechanical problems related to sentencelevel grammar, spelling, and punctuation. These targeted mechanical issues are often addressed through mini-lessons. Providing opportunities for students to publish or share their work with a wider audience for authentic purposes. Collectively, both Krashen and Elbow’s research provides an important and valuable corrective to behavioral “drill and kill” approaches to teaching language and literacy in schools. However, in practice, both perspectives have a number of limitations (Delpit, 1988; Hyland, 2004). First, both assume that the processes of learning one’s home language, an additional language, and to read and write academically are propelled by the same innate human capacity to acquire language that appears to be operational in infancy and childhood. However, a number of studies suggest this may not be the case. For example, research indicates that it is harder to acquire native-like pronunciation and many of the fine-grained nuances of a language’s grammatical system, especially aspects of pronunciation, after puberty. In addition, studies suggest that older language learners may have an advantage over younger ones because they can draw on prior knowledge and other kinds of cognition such as their ability to notice and critically discuss linguistic patterns in ways that children cannot. In other words, counter to Krashen’s theory, studies suggest that older learners benefit from actively noticing grammatical patterns and strategically discussing the linguistic options available to them in different communicative contexts as opposed to “naturally” acquiring literacies in the ways young children acquire oral language in the context of their homes (see Lightbown & Spada, 2013 for a review). Second, Krashen’s ideas have been heavily critiqued because they lack empirical evidence and have resulted in language classrooms looking and sounding like elementary settings where students, even in high school, participate in game-like activities that lack age-appropriate disciplinary content. Likewise, Elbow’s process approach, while based on much stronger empirical findings, tends to favor more expressivist forms of reading and writing such as narratives, personal essays, and poetry at the expense of reading, writing, and critiquing more technical and Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday 55 transactional disciplinary genres such as scientific reports, mathematical explanations, and historical arguments (e.g., Rose & Martin, 2012). Last, and perhaps most importantly, purely psycholinguistic explanations of language and literacy development tend to attribute too much to what may or may not be happening in the minds of individual learners at the expense of helping educators attend to and take more responsibility for the nature of social, cultural, and political forces that support and/or constrain students in developing disciplinary literacies in school (e.g., Gebhard, 2004). In my experience, pre- and in-service teachers who have only been briefly introduced to psycholinguistic explanations of language and literacy development through a course or a single professional development workshop tend to account for variations in learning outcomes in ways that position teachers as having very little influence over student learning. When confronted with data regarding the persistent inability of ELLs and other historically marginalized learners to make academic gains “naturally,” these teachers often attribute failure in school to the student’s hypothetical affective filter, or whether a student is “outgoing” or “shy” and therefore generates more or less linguistic input and output, or whether a child comes from a home that provides a “rich” literacy environment. The problem with these overly simple explanations of differences in educational outcomes is that they position teachers as agentless, take responsibility off schools as powerful institutions that shape students’ academic literacies, and ultimately have the potential to contribute to racist, classist, and sexist explanations of why some students succeed and others fail. Halliday: A Social Semiotic Perspective Language Is a Social Semiotic System and Learning Is an Expansion of This System in the Multiplying Contexts in Which It Develops In response to the limitations of behavioral and psycholinguistic explanations of academic literacy development in schools, educators working in a variety of international contexts have turned to Halliday’s SFL to combat pendulum swings regarding language and literacy education in schools—pendulum swings that often make the most vulnerable in schools even more vulnerable. These swings include debates regarding “skills” versus “project-based” instruction, “product” versus “process” approaches to teaching reading and writing, and “traditional” versus “progressive” approaches to designing curriculum. SFL offers a possible way out of these false, historically constructed binaries by not conceptualizing grammar as either a set of decontextualized rules learned through drill and practice, or as a purely innate human endowment that will develop naturally by itself through social interactions. Rather, SFL scholars argue that grammatical systems expand over a person’s lifetime as they perform an increasing number of functions through languages and other meaning-making systems by interacting with an ever-expanding number of people in a greater and greater variety of contexts, including home, civic organizations, school, and 56 Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday work. As these meaning-making systems expand, explicit grammatical knowhow becomes a powerful social, cognitive, and political tool that functions to construct new ideas and experiences (the ideational function of language), enact a greater variety of social roles and relationships (the interpersonal function of language), and manage the coherent flow of communication in oral, written, and multimodal texts in the diverse contexts in which language and other meaningmaking systems are used (the textual function of language, Halliday, 1993). More importantly for the purposes of this book, SFL practitioners maintain that teachers play an influential role in expanding the linguistic repertoires of all students to enable all students to construct subject matter knowledge, take up authoritative voices, and construct coherent extended texts as they learn to read, write, and discuss disciplinary genres essential to their academic success and potential social mobility. Future chapters, especially Chapter Nine, illustrate how teachers working in urban schools with multilingual learners have developed the ability to use SFL pedagogical tools to design, implement, and reflect on student learning as they work toward this goal while also trying to negotiate the demands of current school reforms. (Chapters Six and Seven detail these reforms, including English-only mandates, the passage of No Child Left Behind legislation, the adoption of the Common Core State Standards, the Next Generation Science Standards, and WIDA standards.) However, before describing how teachers have used SFL concepts in their classrooms, it is important to first get a sense of what these concepts are. Therefore, before showing a classroom discourse example that illustrates a social semiotic perspective of grammar, the following sections provide a more in-depth description of Halliday’s grammar, and how it is organized around three meaningmaking functions. The concepts introduced here will be further explained in subsequent chapters, which also offer illustrations of how teachers have used SFL in their classrooms to support their students’ disciplinary literacy development in critical ways.3 Halliday’s Conception of Text/Context Dynamics and the Functions of Language Halliday explains how language and other meaning-making systems accomplish the remarkable feat of simultaneously constructing ideas and experiences, negotiating social roles and shifting identities, and managing the flow of discourse in different contexts. For example, local classroom contexts are constructed by the oral, written, and multimodal/multilinguistic texts teachers and students produce and interpret in schools. Such texts might include: • • Oral interactions in multiple languages about the actions of characters in a picture book in a kindergarten class A multimodal text on the life cycle of butterflies in a third-grade science class Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday • • • • 57 A bilingual teacher-made instructional packet on the Continental Congress for middle school students A student essay on the use of code mixing and switching in a literary text A website page that introduces high school students to a computer programming task A physics textbook chapter on torque. Collectively, these various kinds of school-based texts or genres have different purposes and audiences and construct different disciplinary knowledge and contexts. They also use identifiable and teachable graphics, organizational structures, sentence structures, and word choices to construct disciplinary know-how and student identities. To dig deeper into Halliday’s theory of text/context dynamics and to support educators in analyzing the processes of text production and interpretation, the rest of this chapter focuses on the innermost circle shown in Figure 3.1. This discussion provides a brief overview of Halliday’s theory of how linguistic choices FIGURE 3.1 Text/context dynamics in schools 58 Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday construct disciplinary ideas, enact social relationships, and manage the coherent flow of information in extended disciplinary discourse (e.g., Halliday & Hasan, 1985). As illustrated in Figure 3.1, central to Halliday’s theory of language, learning, and social change is an understanding that language and other meaningmaking systems, such as images, graphics, and equations, simultaneously perform three interrelated functions in every act of producing and interpreting an oral, written, or multimodal/multilingual text (e.g., Unsworth, 2008). These are the ideational, interpersonal, and textual functions. The ideational function, as the name suggests, constructs ideas and experiences. In school contexts, Derewianka and Jones (2016, p. 21) describe this function as constructing the “fields of knowledge, understandings, and concepts” associated with a disciplinary domain. This function is realized through the field choices a language user makes in producing a text. A student might describe a baseball game to a friend using everyday language in a straightforward way, as in He hit the ball over the fence. On the other hand, she might use language more specific to the field of baseball in writing a journalistic or literary text by selecting fieldspecific verbs/verb groups, nouns/noun groups, and prepositional phrases that tell when, where, and how an event occurred. For example, David Ortiz of the Red Sox squared himself to home plate and drove a 100 mile-per-hour fastball out of Fenway Park to win the game. In this second sentence, the same event is constructed using a longer, more specific noun group (David Ortiz of the Red Sox), more carefully selected verbs (squared himself, drove), and a baseball-specific prepositional phrase (out of Fenway Park) that constructs not just the context of an everyday ballgame, but a major league baseball game in one of the most famous ballparks in the world. Similarly, the same student might encounter a word problem in a physics class that asks her to calculate the time it takes a baseball to reach David Ortiz if the speed of the ball is 100 miles-per-hour and the distance between the pitcher’s mound and home plate is 60.5 feet. In this kind of text, physical observations regarding a baseball game are re-contextualized as a physics problem and are often realized in a graphic and in the form of mathematical symbols in an equation, such as t=d/v, or time equals distance divided by velocity (see Doran, 2017 for further discussion of SFL and physics). Second, the interpersonal function constructs social identities, relationships, power dynamics, attitudes, and feelings. This function is realized through the use of tenor resources that include, for example, commanding someone to do something (e.g., SHUT THE DAMN DOOR!), making a factual statement (e.g., The door is open.), or asking someone politely to consider doing something (e.g., Could you please shut the door?). In addition, tenor resources support language users in constructing degrees of possibility and certainty as well as levels of emotion, evaluation, or judgment (Martin & White, 2005). Recognizing how tenor resources are used in disciplinary texts supports students in learning to read between the lines of a text to shift from literal, to inferential, and more interpretive readings of texts in and out of school. Tenor resources also support students in constructing Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday 59 texts more expertly depending on their purpose and audience. For example, scientific discourse tends to avoid highly emotional language to construct seemingly neutral facts as opposed to personal opinions. In addition, scientific texts tend to use language to qualify or avoid making strong claims that cannot be substantiated or generalized. For instance, consider the difference between the sentences shown in Table 3.2. This table illustrates how different modal verbs (e.g., must, will, can, could, might) construct degrees of certainty from high to low and how attitudinal language constructs ideological positions from positive to negative regarding the topic of recycling. In addition, tenor resources include ways of making claims, toward positive and negative poles, to express the degree to which something exists or does not exist or happened or did not happen, for example, using positive and negative markers (e.g., is/is not, does/does not, has/has not). Last, the textual function manages the flow of ideas in texts to support coherence and cohesion in extended discourse. This function is realized through mode resources, which include, for example, the repetition of an idea through the use of pronouns and near synonyms to keep the focus of a text on a specific topic while also building up new ideas related to the topic over several sentences, TABLE 3.2 Examples of Tenor Resources (Derewianka, 2011; Droga & Humphrey, 2003; Martin & White, 2005; Schleppegrell, 2004) Use of declarative sentences as opposed to commands or questions to construct a “factual” statement Use of modal verbs to convey degrees Use of attitudinal language to of possibility or levels of certainty convey emotion, evaluation, and judgment from negative to positive The modal verb must constructs The word sacred intensifies the Evidence makes clear a high degree of certainty positive attitude toward the communities must topic of recycling recycle to protect the planet’s sacred resources. Possible Certain Negative Positive The modal verb can constructs a The absence of emotional, Evidence suggests medium degree of certainty evaluative, or judgmental communities can language constructs a neutral recycle to preserve the and objective stance toward planet’s resources. the topic of recycling Possible Certain Negative Positive The modal verbs could and might The words very unclear Evidence suggests construct a more negative construct a low degree of communities could attitude toward the topic of certainty and signal a degree recycle, but it is very recycling of doubt unclear what the Certain Negative Positive benefits of these efforts Possible might be. Note: Positive and negative polarity can be coupled with modality (e.g., must/must not) 60 Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday paragraphs, or longer stretches of discourse. Consider the following opening lines of a biographical essay: Cesar Chavez was born in 1927 in Yuma, Arizona. He dedicated his life to improving the working conditions of migrant farm workers. As a union leader, he and Dolores Huerta cofounded the National Farm Workers Association in 1962. The author’s linguistic choices keep the focus on one main topic, Cesar Chavez, through the use of pronouns and other nouns that build up more information about Chavez in ways that coherently and cohesively weave together new ideas with given information (e.g., Cesar Chavez, he, a union leader). In addition, writers can cohesively connect ideas built up from one sentence to the next to express particular kinds of relationships that are essential for constructing particular genres associated with different disciplines. For example, as illustrated in Table 3.3, there are different types of cohesive devices that support the construction of cause and effect relationships (e.g., therefore, as a result, consequently), additive relationships (e.g., in addition, furthermore, moreover), sequencing relationships (e.g., first, second, then, next, last), and ways of clarifying information in explanations and arguments (e.g., for example, in other words, for instance, more specifically). Likewise, time markers can signal key genre stages in narratives (e.g., once upon a time, one day, next, suddenly, after, in the end) and in historical texts (e.g., in 1963, after 1981, then in 1986, since 2000). Using SFL-informed pedagogy, students at all levels of language proficiency can be taught to identify and use cohesive devices to improve their comprehension and production of particular genres when writing for specific purposes and audiences (e.g., recounts, narratives, explanations, arguments). Teachers can instruct students, even beginning language learners, to notice how cohesive TABLE 3.3 Examples of Cohesive Devices Used in Different Disciplinary Genres (Derewianka, 2011; Droga & Humphrey, 2003; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004; Schleppegrell, 2004) Types of Relationships Time relationships Examples Use in Different Genres One day, then, next, suddenly, since, Narratives in the end, even now In 1963, after 1981, then in 1986, Biographies, memoirs, between 1995 and 2000, since 2000 historical recounts Sequencing relationships First, second, third, last, in sum Scientific procedures, mathematical proofs Cause/effect relationships Therefore, as a result, consequently, Explanations in different disciplines Additive relationships In addition, furthermore, moreover Arguments in different disciplines Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday 61 devices work in the different kinds of disciplinary genres they require students to read and write in school to improve students’ reading comprehension and writing abilities (e.g., Gebhard, Chen, & Britton, 2014; see also Chapters Four, Five, and Nine). In sum, Halliday’s articulation of the three functions of language and how these functions are realized in classroom literacy tasks can support teachers in designing curriculum and instruction that enables students to notice and critically discuss the language choices speakers and writers, including themselves, make to: • • • Construct subject matter knowledge through the use of discipline-specific verbs/verb groups, nouns/noun groups, prepositional phrases, and adverbs (i.e., field choices that realize the ideational function of language) Negotiate different voices, identities, social roles, power dynamics, and ideological stances through the use of: statements, questions, or commands; highly emotional or more neutral language; and modal verbs that construct more or less possibility (i.e., tenor choices that realize the interpersonal function of language) Manage the flow of information in extended discourse by repeating key words, using pronouns and select genre-specific cohesive devices, and weaving given and new information together in texts (i.e., mode choices that realize the textual function of language). SFL Perspective of Grammar in Classroom Discourse Practices A number of studies have been conducted in the United States that provide compelling evidence of the potential of SFL-based pedagogy to support the disciplinary literacy development of multilingual learners in these three targeted ways. In particular, a growing number of studies have explored how teachers can use SFL metalanguage, or language for talking about language, to support students’ reading, writing, and discussion of grade-level texts. An example of one such investigation is Moore and Schleppegrell’s (2014) study of how teachers and students in a high-poverty elementary school used SFL metalanguage to analyze authors’ word choices in literary texts and provide textual evidence to support their claims—something many students are not expected to do until they are in secondary English language arts classes. I selected this study from among the many that have been published because it illustrates how teachers can use one or two SFL concepts to focus their instruction in very practical ways to support beginning multilingual readers and writers, even very young ones, in engaging in close reading of grade-level texts. In Moore and Schleppegrell’s study, 12 classroom teachers and nine instructional coaches working in a school district that served large numbers of students from Yemen, Lebanon, and Iraq participated in a professional development project that introduced them to SFL theory and pedagogical tools (O’Hallaron, 62 Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday Palincsar, & Schleppegrell, 2015; Palincsar & Schleppegrell, 2014; Schleppegrell, 2013). The research team incorporated SFL metalanguage into this professional development program based on a growing body of literature that suggests metalanguage can enhance both teachers’ and students’ linguistic awareness in ways that deepen and sharpen their understanding and ability to critically analyze disciplinary discourse (e.g., Gebhard, Chen, & Britton, 2014; Macken-Horarik & Morgan, 2011). Moore and Schleppegrell analyzed transcripts of classroom interactions to explore the potential benefits of teachers using this metalanguage with their multilingual students to support them in discussing, interpreting, and evaluating characters in grade-level literary texts. Specifically, they analyzed teachers’ and students’ uses of SFL metalanguage in the context of a unit that focused on the legend of George Washington chopping down a cherry tree. This text was one all teachers at the elementary level were required to teach. Working within this constraint, the research team designed SFL-informed lessons to support teachers and students in analyzing the actions, reactions, emotions, and judgments of the characters to enable students to write open responses about characters—a genre students are routinely required to write in English language arts classes and on state-mandated exams. In some instances teachers used technical metalanguage associated with SFL and in others they developed their own more student-friendly terms informed by SFL theory to capture how language works in texts to “turn up” or “turn down” the force of an emotion, evaluation, or judgment (Moore & Schleppegrell, 2014, p. 97).4 As Table 3.4 illustrates, the particular SFL practices the team used included highlighting (literally) the types of verbs that are associated with specific characters. These types of verbs included doing verbs to express what characters did in the story (e.g., chopped, stomped), sensing verbs to express characters’ internal TABLE 3.4 Types of Verbs that Make Meaning in Narratives (Derewianka, 2011; Droga & Humphrey, 2003; Martin & White, 2005; Schleppegrell, 2004) Verb types Function Examples Doing verbs To construct what a character did; what happened To construct the internal thoughts and feelings of characters; used in narratives to show how characters reflect or evaluate events To construct how characters talk to each other or about events and ideas in dialogue To construct descriptions or to relate two pieces of information to one another; the most common being/ relating verbs are to be and to have George swung his axe and chopped down the tree. George worried when his father called him into the house. Sensing verbs Saying verbs Being or relating verbs George’s father yelled, “Come here!” with a stern voice. The tree was tall and had many branches. Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday FIGURE 3.2 63 Example of the “attitude line,” a classroom artifact representing the polarity continuum thoughts and feelings (e.g., worried, felt), and saying verbs to capture the voice of a character in speaking with another character or about an event (e.g., yelled, whispered). In addition, the team created a tool they called the attitude line (Figure 3.2) that supported teachers and students in highlighting and discussing words that expressed characters’ attitudes and the force of these attitudes (Moore & Schleppegrell, 2014, p. 97).5 The following classroom interaction illustrates how students were able to use the attitude line to interpret how the author selected words to show rather than tell how characters in the narrative felt (Moore & Schleppegrell, 2014, p. 102, bold added for emphasis): 1. Nadra: I, uh, I . . . put George felt, George felt frustrated, sad, down, and hurtful and bummered out 2. Other students: Bummered? He felt bummered? 3. Teacher: He felt frustrated and what? 4. Student 1 (from Bummed out. Nadra’s group): 5. Student 1: (reading off Nadra’s paper) Frustrated, hurt and bummed out. Sad, down, bummed out. 6. Teacher: Wow, all of those words. Those are a lot of emotions. WHY do you think he felt like that? 7. Nadra: Because he, because when he, because, you know how he cut the, uh he felt, he cut the tree down, then uh, when his dad wake up in the morning and he saw it, he went, he called his, uh, son. Then George went, said he called him in like a, like in a bad voice, not like a good voice, and George was like walking SLOOOWLY to him, and that’s how I got all of these words, because he got like frustrated like he’s not going to know what to do, and SAD because he cut the tree. In this interaction, the students had just finished working in small groups to analyze a sentence from the narrative that read, “George walked slowly into the 64 Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday room.” A student named “Nadra” offered a host of inferences regarding George’s feelings based on her group’s discussion. These included “frustrated, sad, down, and hurtful and bummered [bummed] out” (line 1). In the end of this interaction, Nadra returned to the reading passage to provide textual evidence to make a text-based inference regarding the main character’s emotional state when she put extra emphasis on the word “SLOOOWLY” (line 7). This interaction illustrates how Halliday’s theory of grammar as a meaningmaking resource can be transformed into effective pedagogical tools to support teachers in apprenticing multilingual students to read, write, and critically analyze grade-level texts. In this case, SFL-inspired practices such as using metalanguage to analyze different types of verbs and ways of constructing attitudes supported students in reading, discussing, and writing about characters in grade-level texts. SFL metalanguage provided teachers and students with tools that they used “not only to better understand how disciplinary knowledge is constructed, but also to evaluate it, participate in disciplinary discourses, and ultimately contribute to shaping those discourses” in classroom practice (Moore & Schleppegrell, 2014, p. 93). In contrast to a behavioral perspective of grammar, learners in Moore and Schleppegrell’s study were not drilling and practicing sounds, words, and decontextualized sentence patterns as a way of displaying knowledge of discrete formal grammar rules or an understanding of decontextualized vocabulary words. Nor were they reading short, carefully controlled reading passages or leveled books that are typically devoid of literary value. Moreover, in this class, the teacher did not separate the teaching of different “skills,” such as listening, speaking, reading, and writing into different times of the school day. Rather, using an SFL approach to literacy development, these four interrelated aspects of disciplinary literacy instruction were integrated into one class that explicitly focused on how language works to make meaning in grade-level stories. A key advantage of this approach is that teachers did not wait until their students had reached some ill-defined level of language proficiency before beginning to support students in engaging with disciplinary reading and writing tasks, nor did they arbitrarily separate the teaching of speaking, listening, reading, and writing into distinct levels of instruction. These practices may lead teachers to inadvertently withhold engagement with challenging texts until they feel their students have reached some threshold level of oral language proficiency (Gebhard, 2004, 2005). In addition, similar to a psycholinguistic approach to language teaching, students were negotiating meaning through specific classroom discourse practices (e.g., Walsh, 2011). For example, the teacher in the above text asked more openended why questions (e.g., “Why do think he felt that way?” in line 6) than display questions, which would require simple one-word responses that could be evaluated as correct or incorrect (e.g., IRE, see Cazden, 1988; Christie, 2005; Walsh, 2011). In addition, students had the opportunity to hold the floor while Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday 65 they formulated their thoughts through their use of language, as demonstrated in line 7. Last, students took up different roles in the discussion, including roles typically reserved for teachers, as evidenced in lines 2 and 4 when other students provided Nadra with corrective feedback regarding her pronunciation of “bummed out.” Unlike behavioral or psycholinguistic approaches to teaching language, SFL pedagogy very deliberately and explicitly targets key meaning-making features in disciplinary texts. As Moore and Schleppegrell’s analysis makes clear, an SFL approach to teaching and learning is distinct because it enables teachers and students to notice and name the key linguistic features of a text in principled ways, so students can progress from literal, to inferential, and then critical interpretations of assigned readings as well as provide textual evidence to support their claims. In regard to the field, teachers might support students in classifying different kinds of verbs, or what SFL scholars call processes. In regard to tenor, teachers might support students in analyzing how authors use “attitudinal” resources to construct characters in literature (Moore & Schleppegrell, 2014, p. 97). As Moore and Schleppegrell’s study illustrates, these meaning-making resources can be concretely taught to beginning language learners to support them in unlocking meaning when reading and writing subject-specific texts regardless of their proficiency level, age, and previous schooling experiences. In the words of Moore and Schleppegrell (2014), students who participated in the study were not just learning grammatical labels such as noun and verb, they were “learning to use [SFL’s] grammatical metalanguage to make meaning in discussions about texts, engaging with the language of the author in interaction with each other” (p. 103). Summary and Critique of Different Perspectives of Grammar and Approaches to Language Teaching and Learning in Schools This chapter opened with the voices of pre-service teachers who described very different understandings of what grammar is based on their own schooling experiences and how useful grammar instruction might be in their future work as educators. These teachers tended to adopt more behavioral and psycholinguistic conceptions of grammar. This chapter provided an explanation and critique of these conceptions of grammar, as well as an introduction to a social semiotic perspective rooted in Halliday’s theory of SFL. The three perspectives are summarized in Table 3.5. As noted in Table 3.5, in the extreme, a behavioral perspective maintains that language is a form of observable behavior and that verbal and written behaviors are learned through drill and practice of correct linguistic forms. Within this paradigm, the role of the classroom teacher tends to be oriented toward providing rewards in the form of praise and grades in response to students’ language production as a way of conditioning the “proper” use of a single, standardized, Valorizes disciplinary uses of language and may devalue home and community ways of using language, leading to the reproduction of dominant ways of knowing, being, and doing (note: learning to read, write, and speak in disciplinary ways will not by itself address persistent problems associated with racism, sexism, and classism) Can be technically and theoretically demanding for teachers; some say it is not a realistic approach to improving the disciplinary literacy practices of ELLs, especially in policy contexts that do not support robust forms of teacher education and professional development Indirect corrective feedback instead of overt focus on errors • Errors are clues into a learner’s developing linguistic competence, which will naturally occur • Does not adequately account for the differences between natural development of everyday language in early childhood and active learning of specialized disciplinary literacy practices in school as learners grow older • Does not adequately account for social, cultural, and political dimensions of literacy development in schools • • Critiques Representative • approaches to language variation Teachers correct errors overtly and use a variety of token systems to reward the use of “correct” grammatical forms (e.g., praise, grades) • Does not account for learners’ innate mental capacity to learn languages or comprehend and produce novel utterances • Does not attend to social, cultural, and political forces shaping language and literacy development in schools • • Conception • Language is a form of verbal • Grammatical competence unfolds of language behavior naturally following rules governing of and learning • Grammatical patterns are learned all human languages through drill and practice Representative • Practicing “correct” language • Communicative activities to generate pedagogical patterns, often in a progression linguistic input and output (e.g., practices that proceeds from part to whole playing games, singing songs, reading/ (e.g., sounds, words, sentence writing for pleasure, discussing topics structures, text structures) of high interest) Representative • IRE discourse patterns • More “natural” or everyday discourse classroom (initiation-response-evaluation) patterns (e.g., open-ended questions, discourse focused on formal correctness students hold the floor for extended practices (e.g., display questions) turns and take up a variety of roles) • • • • • • • Learners’ development of new ways of knowing, being, and doing with language and other semiotic systems within expanding cultural contexts (e.g., home, school, and work) Language is a functional meaning-making system Grammatical systems expand systematically and functionally to reflect and construct knowledge, and the cultural contexts in which language and knowledge simultaneously develop over time Challenging tasks that require students to read, write, and discuss texts in discipline-specific ways Teachers model and jointly complete demanding tasks with students, guiding them to notice how language works to construct disciplinary ideas, to enact voice, and to manage the flow of information Discussion about an author’s language choices as being part of a system of available choices Discussion about how language users, including students, make specific kinds of meaning-making choices when communicating with specific audiences for specific purposes Explicit attention to grammar issues from the perspective of the social, cultural, and political contexts in which language is used Use of metalanguage to support students in analyzing the merits of specific linguistic choices in a given context Focus • • • Learners’ observable linguistic behavior Social Semiotic Paradigm (Halliday, Hasan, Vygotsky, Fairclough) Learners’ innate cognitive capacity to process languages Psycholinguistic Paradigm (Chomsky, Krashen) Behavioral Paradigm (Skinner) TABLE 3.5 Conceptions of Grammar in the Teaching and Learning of Language and Literacy in Schools Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday 67 nationalized language. As discussed in this chapter, there are shortcomings to this approach. First, it does not account for the innate capacity humans have for acquiring languages. Second, it does not account for the wide varieties of languages students and teachers use in and out of school as they negotiate boundaries between the communities to which they belong or wish to belong. And third, it does not address important sociocultural factors that influence students’ access to and institutional support for learning to read and write challenging subject matter in school. In response to the limitations of a strictly behavioral approach, more psycholinguistically oriented researchers argue that language is an innate form of cognitive processing and that grammatical competence will unfold naturally following rules governing all human languages (Chomsky, 1965). Teachers who align themselves with this perspective tend to design communicative activities to support students in engaging in more interactive practices. While an improvement over “drill and kill” approaches to teaching and learning, this perspective has also been heavily critiqued (e.g., Delpit, 1988). Critics maintain that psycholinguistic perspectives do not account for the differences between the innate development of everyday languages in early childhood and the active and deliberate learning of subject-specific literacies in school as learners grow older and rely on other kinds of cognition, such as prior knowledge, memory, pattern recognition, the ability to abstract, and metalinguistic knowledge. In addition, this perspective does not adequately consider the influence of political forces that shape learners’ literacy development in schools as institutions. As later chapters will discuss, schools tend to provide students with differential access to and supports for learning how to read, write, and critique subject matter texts based on tracking systems that break down along race and class lines. Moreover, in practice, a psycholinguistic perspective does not require teachers to have a highly explicit understanding of language or language pedagogy. Rather, it tends to privilege teachers who are perceived as “native speakers,” rather than teachers who have pedagogical knowledge and experience living and working through multiple languages. In other words, a purely psycholinguistic perspective of language and learning can collude with de-professionalizing policies that suggest “if you can speak it, you can teach it.” In response to the limitations of psycholinguistics, educational linguists working with Michael Halliday at the University of Sydney in the 1980s began developing a systematic and functional approach to teaching disciplinary language in schools, hence the name: systemic functional linguistics. This socially and culturally rooted perspective suggests that languages and other semiotic systems, such as images, graphics, and equations, are functional meaning-making systems that develop over time in learners’ homes, in their communities, at school, and at work to construct and reflect context-specific ways of knowing, being, and doing. From an SFL perspective, the job of the teacher is not to attempt to replace students’ valuable home and community ways of using language, but to 68 Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday expand students’ grammatical resources so they can read, write, and critically discuss the kinds of texts they will encounter in learning and using mathematics, science, history, and language arts in and out of school. As illustrated in Moore and Schleppegrell’s (2014) study, and as will be discussed in greater detail in later chapters, teachers can design linguistically and cognitively challenging tasks to apprentice students, including young bilinguals, to reading, writing, and critically discussing grade-level texts in discipline-specific ways. However, SFL approaches to teaching disciplinary literacies have also been critiqued on a number of grounds. First, some scholars see SFL pedagogy as valorizing academic discourse in ways that maintain racist ideologies regarding linguistic diversity in schools (e.g., Flores & Rosa, 2015). As a result, some view SFL-based instruction as serving a more reproductive as opposed to emancipatory agenda, especially given that learning to read and write in discipline-specific ways will not eliminate persistent race, class, and gendered biases at work, in schools, and in society (e.g., Luke, 1996). Other critics claim this approach is too theoretical and technical for teachers and therefore not a realistic approach to teacher education (e.g., Ferris, 2011). Given that the U.S. educational system has historically demonstrated weak commitments to teacher professional development and sporadic commitments to racial, class, and gender equity, these critiques have merit. Moreover, they take on extra meaning when teachers work in school districts that demand they follow scripted curricula and do not allow them to design their own materials responsive to the needs of their students and community. Nonetheless, as will be presented in subsequent chapters, a growing body of research conducted in different grade levels and content areas suggests that SFL-based pedagogies can support teachers in addressing persistent inequities, even when they work in schools that give them very little room to maneuver (e.g., Gebhard & Harman, 2011). Praxis Collecting and Analyzing Transcripts of Classroom Interactions As the data illustrated in this chapter reveal, classroom interactions reflect different perspectives regarding how teachers approach their work with language learners. To explore the topics presented in this chapter in greater detail, make arrangements to audio record and transcribe classroom interactions involving students who have been identified as ELLs. These students can be in a bilingual, ESL, or content-based classroom. The purpose of this task is to support you in noticing how tacit theories of language and learning shape classroom interactions between teachers and students in ways that are consequential for students’ literacy development. This kind of noticing is called analyzing classroom discourse, or how turns at talk in classrooms work to construct ideas and experiences, social identities and power dynamics, and manage the flow of communication (e.g., Christie, 2005). Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday 69 Keep the following tips in mind for collecting and preparing a transcript as a group: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Producing an accurate transcript takes a surprising amount of time, revision, and attention to detail. However, the time it takes yields many benefits in regard to noticing the differences between oral and written language and the degree to which teaching and learning is more complex than we might otherwise think. Given the demands of producing a high quality transcript, it is useful to have different members of the group work on successive drafts, with each revision adding greater detail and degrees of accuracy. This approach also gives each member of the group a deeper appreciation of how complex language and social interactions in classrooms are. Having a good audio recording is crucial to this task. Most cell phones have this capability, but ambient noise can be a problem. Therefore, think about where you can place the recording device so that it is out of the way, but also will pick up students’ voices. For the purpose of professional development, it is not necessary to transcribe an entire class. Therefore, in deciding what to transcribe, I suggest focusing on a part of the class that is related to instruction as opposed to other kinds of administrative tasks teachers and students perform (e.g., attendance, collecting papers, making announcements). Once you have selected an instructional portion of the class, focus on transcribing a threeto five-minute segment that is related to the content goals of the class and your topic of interest, and that includes interaction between teachers and students, or students and students. When transcribing and analyzing classroom talk, it is worth reiterating that teaching and learning are very complex activities. This means a short transcript cannot be taken as indicative of a teacher’s approach to supporting his or her students’ language and literacy development. Moreover, most teachers, depending on the purpose of a teaching event, use a combination of behavioral, psycholinguistic, and sociocultural practices in productive ways. Therefore, when transcribing and analyzing classroom talk, the goal is not to label teachers as believing in one paradigm over another or to judge them as being either good or bad teachers. Rather, the goal is for group members to learn to identify how different perspectives regarding language and language development are manifest in classroom interactions and shape students’ learning opportunities. Task Directions and Topics for Discussion 1. 2. Review your group’s observational fieldnotes and accompanying audio file. Select a short clip of audio data (e.g., three to five minutes in length). 70 Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday 3. Transcribe this clip using the conventions shown in the transcripts presented in this chapter. These conventions include: a. Numbering each line. b. Capturing exactly what participants say. In other words, do not edit the language used by teachers and students to make it look and sound more like written discourse as opposed to oral discourse. It is normal for classroom talk to be full of false starts, repetitions, and incomplete sentences. c. If students mix or switch between languages, work with a multilingual member of your group to transcribe this clip. In the event that no one in your group speaks the languages of students, then consider finding a colleague who can help you with this task. Also think of a way to compensate them for their contribution to your work. Either way, transcribe exactly the language used in the interaction. You can supply translations in parentheses (see Chapter Nine). d. Capturing important aspects of non-verbal communication using notes in brackets. This information functions like stage directions in the script of a play. e. Marking emphasis, volume, long pauses, and overlapping speech as follows: • • • • 4. Bold to realize emphasis CAPITALS to realize volume Brackets around a number of seconds to indicate a pause and the length of the pause (e.g., [3.5]). This convention helps you notice “wait time” as well as other ways silence is used in class in meaningful ways. Indenting to signal overlapping speech. This is helpful to capture how students and teacher negotiate who has the floor and the right to speak about what and when (e.g., on-task interruptions, off-task interruptions, side conversations happening at the same time). Once you have a quality transcript, review it as a group. a. Make any comments regarding what you expected, what you noticed, and what was surprising or unexpected about this interaction (e.g., how much teachers talk compared to students, who participates, and who does not). b. Analyze the transcript using the concepts presented in this chapter: • • What kinds of interactional patterns are evident (e.g., IRE, use of display questions regarding language forms or content knowledge, use of open-ended questions to invite discussion, providing students with indirect feedback in the form of a recast, discussions of linguistic choices readers and writers make to achieve a specific purpose when communicating with a specific audience about a disciplinary topic)? What conceptions of language and literacy development are enacted in your transcript (keeping in mind that it is just one short clip and Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday • • 5. 6. 71 not necessarily representative of other ways that languages are used in this class or school)? Behavioral, psycholinguistic, social semiotic? Support your interpretations with evidence from the transcript by describing key lines in the transcript that illustrate your point. Make some preliminary inferences regarding what students might be learning through their participation in classroom activities (e.g., formal aspects of language, an ability to take turns in a discussion, an ability to focus on how language works in a specific way to make meaning). Again, it is important to underscore that claims regarding student learning cannot be made based on such minimal data. Rather, the purpose of this task is to practice connecting theoretical concepts with classroom observations to support your ability to reflect on classroom practices in informed ways. Based on your group’s data collection and analysis, begin to make a list of action items to inform your future work as teachers (e.g., assigning more authentic grade-level reading and writing tasks, drawing students’ attention to how language works in specific ways to make meaning in your content area, supporting students in participating in classroom discussions, supporting students in giving linguistic evidence for their inferences and interpretations). Be as concrete as you can to support translating conceptual ideas into practice. Use Table 3.A to support you in analyzing classroom discourse practices. Feel free to expand this table to capture topics of interest that emerge. TABLE 3.A Analyzing Classroom Discourse Practices ANALYZING CLASSROOM DISCOURSE PRACTICES Topic Line(s) in Connections to Implications for the transcript key concepts in teaching and this chapter learning disciplinary literacies in schools What language, languages, or varieties of language are used in class? Do teachers and students shift between languages and varieties of language in classroom discussions? Amount of talk: Who talks, how much, and what is the function of their talk? Who is silent? How does silence function? Control over interactions: How do students get the floor to participate? How do classroom practices support equitable participation? (Continued) TABLE 3.A (Continued) ANALYZING CLASSROOM DISCOURSE PRACTICES Topic Control over the content: How are new topics introduced? Who controls what topics are introduced into the discussion and if these topics get taken up? What are the functions of teacher and student talk? Is an IRE discourse pattern prevalent (Initiation-ResponseEvaluation)? Does the teacher use “wait time” to give students a chance to participate? Does the teacher use more open-ended or closed “yes/no” questions? Do teachers and students expand on each other’s contributions to construct meaning? Support for disciplinary literacy development: How do the teacher and students use language(s) and other meaning-making systems to construct disciplinary concepts (e.g., code switching, use of objects, images, and graphics)? Support for the expansion of student identities: How do the teacher and students use language(s) and other meaning making systems to expand the range of identities students’ construct in school? What perspectives of grammar and literacy development are constructed in this interaction (e.g., Skinner, Chomsky, Halliday)? Other topics of interest related to race, class, and gender construction Other topics related to your discipline and career trajectory Line(s) in Connections to Implications for the transcript key concepts in teaching and this chapter learning disciplinary literacies in schools Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday 73 Notes 1 James Gee (2008) defines a discourse as ways of talking, listening, reading, writing, acting, believing, valuing, and using tools and objects in particular settings at specific times, so as to display or recognize a particular social identity. He maintains that a discourse creates social positions or perspectives from which people speak, listen, act, read, and write, think, feel, and believe. 2 Syntax refers to word order. Morphology refers to the system of meaningful parts of words such as prefixes (e.g., anti-, de-, re-, un-) and suffixes (-ly, -ed, -ish, -ism). 3 Some readers may find it more useful to read a practice-oriented chapter first and then return to this more theoretical one. My suggestion is to pick either a theoretical or practical entry point and re-read chapters with different goals to develop both conceptual and pedagogical insights. 4 In SFL terms, these linguistic resources are part of a language’s appraisal system (see Martin & White, 2005). 5 Reprinted from Using a functional linguistics metalanguage to support academic language development in the English Language Arts. J. P. Moore & M. J. Schleppegrell, 2014, Linguistics and Education, 26, 92–105. Reprinted with permission. References Alim, H.S., Ibrahim, A., & Pennycook, A. (2009). Global linguistics flows: Hip hop cultures, youth identities, and the politics of language. New York: Routledge. Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Writing, reading, and learning with adolescents. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Borg, S. (2015). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. New York: Bloomsbury. Brisk, M.E. (2014). Engaging students in academic literacies: Genre-based pedagogy for K-5 classrooms. New York: Routledge. Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Chaudron, C. (1998). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of syntax. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Christie, F. (1993). The ‘received tradition’ of English teaching: The decline of rhetoric and the corruption of grammar. In B. Green (Ed.), The insistence of the letter: Literacy studies and curriculum theorizing (pp. 75–106). London: Falmer Press. Christie, F. (2005). Classroom discourse analysis: A functional perspective. New York: Bloomsbury. de Oliveira, L.C., & Iddings, J. (Eds.). (2014). Genre pedagogy across the curriculum: Theory and application in U.S. classrooms and contexts. London: Equinox. de Silva Joyce, H., & Feez, S. (2016). Exploring literacies: Theory, research and practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280–299. 74 Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday Derewianka, B. (2011). A new grammar companion for teachers (2nd ed.). Sydney: Primary English Teaching Association. Derewianka, B.M., & Jones, P. (2016). Teaching language in context (2nd ed.). South Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press. Doran, Y.J. (2017). The discourse of physics: Building knowledge through language, mathematics and image. New York: Routledge. Droga, L., & Humphrey, S. (2003). Grammar and meaning: An introduction for primary teachers. New South Wales, Australia: Target Texts. Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York: Oxford University Press. Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M.J. (2008). Reading in secondary content areas: A language-based pedagogy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Ferris, D.R. (2011). Written discourse analysis and school language teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning: Vol. 2 (pp. 645–662). New York: Routledge. Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149–171. Gebhard, M. (2004). Fast capitalism, school reform, and second language literacy practices. Modern Language Journal, 88(2), 245–265. Gebhard, M. (2005). School reform, hybrid discourses, and second language literacies. TESOL Quarterly, 39(2), 187–210. Gebhard, M., Chen, I., & Britton, L. (2014). “Miss, nominalization is a nominalization”: English language learners’ use of SFL metalanguage and their literacy practices. Linguistics and Education, 26, 106–125. Gebhard, M., & Harman, R. (2011). Reconsidering genre theory in K-12 schools: A response to school reforms in the United States. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(1), 45–55. Gee, J.P. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. New York: Routledge. Godley, A.J., Carpenter, B.D., & Werner, C.A. (2007). “I’ll speak in proper slang”: Language ideologies in a daily editing activity. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 100–131. Green, L.J. (2002). African American English: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Halliday, M.A.K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5(2), 93–116. Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social semiotic perspective. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. (3rd ed.). London: Arnold. Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Kramsch, C. (1985). Classroom interaction and discourse options. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7(2), 169–183. Krashen, S.D. (1987). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall International. Lightbown, P.M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Luke, A. (1996). Genres of power? Literacy education and the production of power. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 308–338). New York: Longman. Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday 75 Macken-Horarik, M., & Morgan, W. (2011). Towards a metalanguage adequate to linguistic achievement in post-structuralism and English: Reflections on voicing in the writing of secondary students. Linguistics and Education, 22(2), 133–149. Martin, J.R., & White, P.R.R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Moore, J., & Schleppegrell, M.J. (2014). Using a functional linguistics metalanguage to support academic language development in the English Language Arts. Linguistics and Education, 26, 92–105. New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92. O’Hallaron, C.L., Palincsar, A.S., & Schleppegrell, M.J. (2015). Reading science: Using systemic functional linguistics to support critical language awareness. Linguistics and Education, 32, 55–67. Palincsar, A.S., & Schleppegrell, M.J. (2014). Focusing on language and meaning while learning with text. TESOL Quarterly, 48(3), 616–623. Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: How the mind creates language. New York: William Morrow. Roeper, T. (2007). The prism of grammar: How child language illuminates humanism. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Rose, D., & Martin, J.R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. London: Equinox. Schleppegrell, M. J.(2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schleppegrell, M.J. (2013). The role of metalanguage in supporting academic language development. Language Learning, 63(S1), 153–170. Unsworth, L. (Ed.). (2008). Multimodal semiotics: Functional analysis in contexts of education. New York: Bloomsbury. Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. New York: Routledge. 4 GENRES, REGISTERS, AND THE TEACHING AND LEARNING CYCLE 1. Hi Meg, My name is Kara Simon. It was nice to meet you at the orientation last evening. I had emailed you towards the end of last semester about enrolling in Education 684. I am a STEP English student and am very interested in enrolling in this course, my Spire ID # is 12345678. Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you. Kara Simon 2. Dear Professor Gebhard, I am a 2006 UMass Amherst alum with a BA in English and have just been accepted as a Non-Degree graduate student. I am very interested in enrolling in Education 684 - Reading, Writing, Language & Thinking. Is this at all possible? (I am planning to apply to the School of Education this fall to begin full-time work toward the M.A.) I would welcome the opportunity to speak with you further and could perhaps attend the first class to see if enrolling would be an option. Thank you for your consideration. I hope to hear from you soon! Best regards, Barbara O’Shea 3. Dear Meg, I am a second year masters student in LLC, and I am interested in teaching English as a foreign language in my own country. I would like very much to enroll in EDUC 684, as I am very interested in learning more about this subject. Please let me know if this is possible. Sincerely Huifang Liu Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle 77 4. Dear Professor, I am a second year UTS student in the STEP English program. I am very interested in your required EDUC 684 course and I am wondering if I might be able to register despite the fact that SPIRE states that the course is full. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely Isabel Johnson 5. Hello Professor, My name is Yu Yan. I am wanna register for 684 bc I gotta have it for graduation. Could you please let me in the class? Yu Yan Zhou 6. Dear Dr. Gebhard, My name is Ellen Haas, and I am trying to enroll in ED 684 for the fall, and SPIRE is telling me I need special permission from the teacher (you) in order to enroll. I am in the STEP program, so I don’t think there should be any restrictions on my enrollment. Could you let me know what to do in order to enroll in this class?? Thank you very much. Take care! Ellen The above emails were sent to me a number of years ago by graduate students wishing to enroll in a course designed to introduce them to SFL, genre theory, and an SFL approach to designing curriculum. These graduate students represent different ages, genders, and linguistic, racial, ethnic, cultural, and national backgrounds. As an SFL researcher and teacher educator, I began collecting these emails because I was struck by the variation in the linguistic choices graduate students make in constructing these seemingly simple requests. For example, some have the genre elements of a business letter and others are more like text messages. Some provide lots of institutional details and are more formal, while others give few specifics and use a more informal and direct tone. Given this variation, when I first started incorporating SFL into my teacher education courses, I decided to use a set of approximately 10 emails (with pseudonyms) to introduce pre- and in-service teachers to SFL concepts and teaching practices by guiding them in analyzing the genre, field, tenor, and mode features of these short texts. My purpose was to have them intuitively discover how language choices simultaneously construct ideas (field), enact self-other dynamics (tenor), and manage the flow of discourse (mode) in ways that can have intended and unintended consequences within the complex institutional context of a college campus. In addition, I was interested in guiding teachers in using these insights to outline how they might use SFL tools to design curriculum, instruction, and assessments to support newcomers to the university in making more strategic linguistic choices to achieve their purposes in communicating with 78 Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle faculty. Teachers, even those with no background in linguistics and without having read any SFL scholarship, typically find analyzing these emails to be an engaging and eye-opening experience because it allows them to reflect on how they interact with others through this mode of communication. More importantly, a discussion of these emails provides them with insight into challenges students at all levels of schooling encounter when they enter a new cultural context, such as a university, school, or classroom, where they are expected to use language in new ways, with new people, to accomplish new kinds of potentially high-stakes tasks. Therefore, using these sample emails, the purpose of this chapter is to explore the following questions: • • • • How are text/context dynamics implicated in the ways texts are produced and interpreted in institutional contexts, especially schools? What are some of the main genres students are required to read, write, and discuss in school? Are there predictable, identifiable, and teachable ways these genres are typically organized? How do field, tenor, and mode resources work together to construct meaning in different genres? Are there predictable, identifiable, and teachable ways field, tenor, and mode resources are configured to construct meaning in the genres students are routinely asked to read, write, and discuss in school? How can teachers use an explicit knowledge of genre types and field, tenor, and mode resources to design, implement, and critically reflect on their students’ literacy practices? To explore these questions, this chapter supports readers in delving deeper into Halliday’s theory of language, a Vygotskian perspective of development, and a Freirean approach to action research to support ELLs’ disciplinary literacy practices and their teachers’ professional development. This chapter begins with an SFL analysis of the above emails and a brief outline of a curricular unit developed by teachers in one of my courses using SFL concepts and an SFL-based approach to literacy instruction. This approach, called the teaching and learning cycle (TLC), was first developed by linguists and teacher educators in Australia and has been shown to improve the literacy gains of students (e.g., Derewianka & Jones, 2016). Next, this chapter describes how literacy researchers and teacher educators in the United States have used the TLC to support the disciplinary literacy practices of K-12 students, especially ELLs. Based on a brief review of three teacher education programs in the United States informed by SFL, I present an expanded TLC that attempts to address current problems in U.S. education by adding additional stages that focus on planning culturally responsive and standards-based curricular units; critically reflecting on student learning and equity issues through data collection and analysis; and sharing the findings from critical reflections with a wider audience of teachers, administrators, literacy researchers, and policymakers. This Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle 79 chapter concludes with a praxis section that guides readers in planning a curricular unit using this expanded TLC. Text/Context Dynamics: Analyzing Email Requests Sent to a Professor When I ask pre- and in-service teachers in my master’s level courses to review the emails that open this chapter, many of them describe the discomfort they feel when they have to send an email to a professor—especially if it is someone they do not know and the communication is about something important. They express uncertainty about how to hit the right tone given the social distance and status differences that typically exist between students and faculty (i.e., tenor choices), what information to include (i.e., field choices), and how to manage the flow of information to get to the point quickly (i.e., mode choices). To make these choices, some teachers, especially experienced or older ones, describe drawing on their prior knowledge of the genre of a business letter to get started. For example, the writer of Email 2 uses a greeting (“Dear Professor Gebhard”) and closing (“Best regards”), as well as line spacing that is typical of a business letter to establish a more formal tone. In contrast, younger, pre-service teachers who have more knowledge of the university’s acronyms draw on this insider information to make their requests more detailed and potentially more persuasive. For example, the writer of Email 4 was able to pack a lot of institutional knowledge into one single, very long noun group to identify herself as “a second year UTS student in the STEP English program” as she made a request to register for an over-enrolled class. Teachers also talk about not knowing how formal or informal to be given that graduate students, especially in my department, and in the United States more generally, tend to call professors by their first names. Those from international backgrounds often describe not liking this level of familiarity because they prefer to maintain more traditional understandings of the roles and responsibilities of students and faculty. For example, to construct their identities in relation to mine, the authors of the sample emails use different forms of address in composing their emails: ←Dear Dr. Gebhard—Dear Professor Gebhard—Hello Professor—Dear Meg—Hi Meg→ These forms of address can be understood along a cline, or scale. At one end, tenor choices construct greater social distance through the use of institutional status markers. On the other end, the decision to use my first name flattens out hierarchical structures and creates familiarity. Teachers in my courses often stress the necessity of getting the tone or tenor right because of problems they have encountered in registering for 80 Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle required courses and planning their schedules. They note that the authors of these emails seem to be trying to strike the right balance between deference and assertiveness. For example, the writer of Email 4 uses highly attitudinal language (e.g., “I am very interested”) and a deferential modal verb (e.g., “might be able to register”), and phrases her request using a statement, not a question or command. In discussing these different choices, teachers note that requests are not always constructed grammatically in the form of a question (e.g., “Could you please let me in the class?”), but are sometimes realized in the form of a statement (e.g., “I am very interested in enrolling,” as in Emails 1 and 2), perhaps as a way to frame the request as a statement of fact that is less open to negotiation. Interestingly, teachers also notice other kinds of linguistic choices writers make to construct a sense of urgency without using an offensive command, such as Register me for this required class now! For example, they note how the writer of Email 6 coupled field and tenor resources to express irritation with the process of registering for a required course using an online system called Spire. In analyzing this email, teachers comment on how the writer made field choices that construct the computer system as having more agency and control over registration than students and faculty (e.g., “SPIRE is telling me I need special permission from the teacher (you) in order to enroll”). They also highlight tenor choices such as the use of a double question mark (??) to express irritation. This email invariably inspires teachers in my courses to talk about the problems they have encountered in getting into required courses and the steep increase in tuition costs, even at a state university (for example, UMass has increased tuition for state residents by 27% from 2011 to 2017—an increase that has caused many students to take out more loans and some not to finish). When the topic of money comes up, teachers tend to reference discourses of consumerism, which construct students as clients, faculty as service providers, and the university as selling a product in the form of a degree or teaching license. These more marketdriven constructions of the purposes of higher education are at odds with how many have been socialized to view the mission of public education and the institutional identities of students and faculty. For example, some find Email 5 objectionable, remarking that not only are the field and tenor choices highly informal, but that the author’s language use also signals a pure compliance orientation to education (e.g., “I am wanna register for 684 bc I gotta have it for graduation”). Others find Email 5 funny. In response, one teacher reported that as she increasingly used forms of communication that blend oral and written linguistic choices (mode), such as text messaging and Instagram, she began to pay less attention to issues of formality and audience. Jokingly, she remarked, “Everyone is my friend, and the world is my audience!” When I explain that Email 5 was written by a young international student who had never been to the United States and had never before enrolled in a graduate course, some students begin to view his linguistic choices from a very Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle 81 different angle. For example, some remark that he probably did not understand the degree to which wanna and gotta are highly informal. Moreover, given his newcomer status, he probably had not yet developed the field resources needed to define the nature of his request using the alphabet soup of program acronyms proliferated on college campuses (e.g., UTS, LLC, STEP). I also share that when I attended graduate school in the late 1980s, email was just beginning to be used as a means of communication among students and faculty. At that time, I had never had to produce a text like this, let alone do so in a second language. Rather, back in the day, advising and registration were conducted in face-to-face interactions, and in interactions supported by printed documents such as a list of program requirements, a course catalogue, and a course schedule. I suggest that face-to-face interaction, particularly in contrast to quickly drafted email exchanges, affords faculty members the opportunity to take the lead in advising sessions, providing guidance to new students who will later be able to manage institutional tasks more independently. It also allows faculty and students to get to know one another and design a program of study that is more suited to students’ evolving interests and professional goals, especially at the graduate level. In sum, discussing these emails with teachers in my courses provides insights into the complexities of text/context dynamics, as illustrated in Figure 4.1. These insights grow as teachers complete course assignments, conduct fieldwork FIGURE 4.1 Text/context dynamics in schools (focus on genre and register) 82 Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle in schools, and complete their student teaching experiences—all of which require that they translate social semiotic theories regarding language and learning into curriculum, instruction, and assessments as described in Chapter Three. Pre- and in-service teachers who have made an investment in learning to use SFL in these ways describe the work as initially very challenging because it asks them to unlearn a lot of what they think language is and what “good” teaching and learning looks like based on their previous experiences as students. Nevertheless, many describe how learning to analyze students’ textual practices using SFL tools enables them to think much more deeply and concretely about how they can design instructional materials that attend not only to the development of content knowledge, but also disciplinary language from a much more inclusive perspective. In addition, they demonstrate an expanding awareness that language not only reflects the context in which it is used, but also constructs of the context itself. For instance, teachers are typically able to make connections between the linguistic choices the writers of these emails made and the broader cultural, institutional, economic, and political contexts in which these texts are situated and interpreted. That is, they are able to identify linguistic choices that signal, for example, the negative impact of new technologies, the rising costs of college tuition, and ideological shifts regarding the purposes of higher education. In addition, they are able to analyze a specific email that broke with their cultural expectations regarding what constitutes an appropriate way of communicating with a professor. While most agree that the linguistic choices “wanna” and “gotta” in Email 5 are not strategic, teachers who initially make snap judgments about writers based on their language use are able to move past these judgments. In addition, many of the teachers in my courses have had the experience of trying to use a new language in crossing linguistic and cultural boundaries. These border crossers are often people who are themselves first-generation college students, users of nondominant varieties of English, people who have lived in non-English speaking countries for an extended period, or international students new to the United States (for a discussion of border crossing see Giroux, 1992). Drawing on their lived experiences as insiders and outsiders, many of these teachers are able to speculate on why a young man from China might make specific linguistic choices precisely because he lacks an understanding of the cultural context he is entering and a knowledge of the range of linguistic choices available to him in communicating within this specific context. SFL, Genres, and Registers The point of this chapter is to illustrate how looking closely at texts can heighten teachers’ awareness of text/context dynamics to support their work with ELLs in K-12 classrooms. In addition to conducting a field, tenor, and mode analysis based on the genre of email requests, as presented above, pre- and Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle 83 in-service teachers in my courses are typically able to intuit a set of genre stages that are likely to be functional for the purpose of writing an effective email request to a professor. Genre stages refer to the way a speaker or writer approaches organizing or “staging” an extended text to accomplish a particular goal, such as making a request (Martin & Rose, 2008, p. 6). The specific genre stages teachers tend to identify in analyzing these emails are: a greeting, a statement of one’s institutional identity, a statement of a problem or issue motivating the request, the request itself, a closing, and a signature. While the term genre is often associated with literary studies, SFL scholar Suzanne Eggins notes that in the context of teaching and learning, this term captures “how things get done, when language is used to accomplish them” in different social contexts (2004, p. 55). As Figure 4.1 illustrates, “things get done” in social contexts, which Halliday and Hasan (1985) suggest can productively be examined at two levels: context of culture and context of situation. Context of culture describes the expanding range of all genres and genre relations operating within a particular context. For example, the cultural context of a teacher education program is constructed through a range of genres that include research articles, case studies of different learners, field notes from classroom observations, lesson plans, curricular unit plans, reflections on student learning, district curriculum guides, state standards, highstakes exams, and state and federal policy statements. These genres construct professional knowledge and practices in the interdisciplinary field of education. These genres are not enacted through the use of strict templates that exist in a concrete and fixed way, but function much more like ideological frameworks that become internalized as a result of how we are socialized to use language and other meaning-making systems as we are apprenticed into the profession of teaching. Registers, on the other hand, are much more concrete. As will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter Five, registers are the specific configurations of field, tenor, and mode choices people make in producing an individual text and what they interpret when they hear sounds, or see lines on a page, images, and graphics. Drawing on terminology from linguistic anthropology, Halliday refers to this aspect of text/context dynamics as the context of situation. Halliday and Hasan (1985) write that every text is: an instance of social meaning in a particular context of situation. It is a product of its environment, a product of a continuous process of choices in meaning that we can represent as paths or passes through the networks that constitute the linguistic system. (p. 11, emphasis added) This “linguistic system” includes ways of pronouncing or graphically rendering sounds and images (e.g., would very much like to, want to, wanna), selecting particular words (e.g., enroll, STEP English, SPIRE), grouping and ordering words I am a second year UTS student in the STEP English program I am very interested in your required EDUC 684 course and I am wondering if I might be able to register despite the fact that SPIRE states that the course is full. I look forward to hearing from you Statement of institutional identity Statement of request Sincerely Isabel Johnson Dear Professor, Greeting Additional information to support the request Closing Signature SAMPLE EMAIL GENRE STAGES Verb choice signals the professor should reply (look forward to hearing) Greeting choice avoids the problem of knowing if the instructor has earned a doctorate, as well as issues of gender and status associated with Mr. or Ms. in academic contexts Uses I Uses a being verb am to describe self in relation to the university (a second year UTS student in the STEP English program) constructing a specific context of situation Uses long, packed noun groups (e.g., your required EDUC 684 course) to communicate a lot of information quickly Field Choices REGISTER FEATURES TABLE 4.1 Genre and Register Analysis of an Email to a Professor Starts with I to signal the main topic Repeats I to stay on topic and build information about the writer Uses cohesive devices and and despite to connect ideas Repeats I to stay on topic and build information about the writer Uses declarative statements to establish a set of facts Uses language to express feelings (very interested) Uses the modal verb might to signal possibility rather than make a more direct request Signals the genre of a formal business letter Signals the genre of a formal business letter Signals formality, social distance, and status differential Uses a declarative statement that acts as a request; could imply an expected affirmative response or could be a polite way of closing Choice of sign-off and use of full name signals formality and social distance Mode Choices Tenor Choices Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle 85 syntactically (e.g., I am a second year UTS student in the STEP English program), and structuring longer stretches of discourse to accomplish a particular social purpose (e.g., organizing the stages in an email request). To illustrate how genre stages and register variables are realized in a specific text, Table 4.1 provides an analysis of Email 4. The genre stages are listed in the left-hand column. These stages were identified by a group of teachers in one of my courses after a discussion of the commonalities and differences they noticed across ten emails. I asked these teachers to determine which stages they thought were functional, and therefore required for the text to function as a request (as opposed to some other purpose), and which stages they thought were more optional. In addition, I asked them to approach this task as if they were going to use their analyses to design a workshop for newcomers to the university, especially international students, on effective ways of communicating with faculty through email. Translating SFL Theory into Classroom Practice After teachers conduct this analysis, I introduce them to the teaching and learning cycle (TLC), originally a five-staged approach to literacy instruction developed in the 1980s by SFL scholars, teacher educators, and classroom practitioners working in disadvantaged schools in Australia (e.g., Derewianka & Jones, 2016; Rose & Martin, 2012). These stages include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Building background knowledge of the field Supporting students in reading authentic texts Deconstructing a target text collaboratively with teacher guidance Jointly constructing a text to support students’ writing development with teacher guidance Requiring students to produce a text more independently. The purpose of introducing teachers to this cycle in conjunction with an analysis of these emails is to demonstrate how SFL theory can be translated into classroom practice relatively quickly and effectively. For example, after just one course meeting, pre- and in-service teachers suggested the following practices to faculty related to teaching the genre of email requests based on their emerging understanding of SFL and the TLC: Stage One: Build students’ background knowledge of the field as it relates to their program of study by asking them to introduce themselves using their new institutional identity as well as other identities they care to share using different languages or varieties of language (e.g., First year STEP student in the 180 Days Pathway, former journalist, mother, photographer, chemistry teacher, hiker, Puerto Rican). 86 Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle Stage Two: Support students in reading program descriptions, licensure requirements, and graduation requirements to develop a deeper understanding of the institutional context they are entering. In this activity, students read selected handouts, highlighting key words and phrases, and ask questions as they come up. In addition, students break into pairs and draft an outline of their program of study based on an initial pass through these documents. Stage Three: Deconstruct the genre and register features of several model emails to make institutional knowledge, genre knowledge, and the pros and cons of different word choices highly visible and open to public reflection and debate. Text deconstruction activities can be simultaneously instructive, humorous, and critical as students notice and discuss the potential meanings of different ways of organizing information, using specific phrases, or deciding on particular wording (e.g., wanna, gotta). Stage Four: Jointly construct a sample email together as a whole group to further hone genre knowledge and discuss language choices. For example, students can select a language other than English if the student and faculty member share a language. They can play with different ways of addressing and signing off to try creating more or less social distance depending on their familiarity with the receiver of the email. And they can discuss personal and cultural preferences regarding how they choose to address faculty and want faculty to address them (e.g., discussion of preferred pronouns). Stage Five: Have students independently construct an email to their advisor requesting an appointment to review their program of study, professional goals, and opportunities on and off campus related to their interests using their new knowledge of the institutional context in which they are attending school and their new understanding of this genre and how linguistic choices construct ideas (field), their voice or identity (tenor), and the flow of their email (mode). SFL in Action: The Teaching and Learning Cycle in K–12 Schools In the context of K-12 schools, the genre of an email request is not as relevant to students’ academic trajectories, but being able to read, write, and critique other types of genres such as literary narratives, scientific explanations, and mathematical arguments is central to students’ ability to manage the literacy demands of schooling. From a sociocultural perspective of development, as discussed in Chapter Three, the TLC has a number of distinct features that make it very different from a behaviorist “drill and practice” approach or a psycholinguistic “natural” approach. For example, the TLC actively draws on students’ background knowledge and language practices, provides high quality models, engages students in collaborative reading and writing tasks, and actively guides Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle 87 students in making disciplinary knowledge and literacy know-how highly visible and open to critical reflection. As described in the teachers’ suggestions for teaching the genre of email, during Stage One of the TLC, building knowledge of the field, teachers actively draw on students’ everyday knowledge of a topic, and in doing so, engage students’ everyday ways of using language. Stage Two focuses on supporting students in reading to build content knowledge and further guides students in learning about a specific topic. During Stage Three, teachers collaboratively work with the whole class to deconstruct model texts as a way of concretely analyzing how expert writers organize information using genre stages and how they make specific linguistic choices within sentences and clauses to construct disciplinary ideas (field choices), construct their identities as writers (tenor choices), and manage the flow of information coherently and cohesively (mode choices). During Stage Four, the focus of instruction shifts from close reading activities to the craft of writing. During this stage, teachers guide the whole class in jointly constructing a text with student input using newly learned subject matter, genre, and register knowledge. And last, during Stage Five, the independent construction stage, students draw on the knowledge they have co-constructed in class to produce more expert subject-specific texts on their own or with less support from their teachers, peers, and family. In teaching disciplinary literacy practices following this method, it is important to note that effective teaching also involves carefully managing how all students go about completing demanding academic work. For example, using the TLC, teachers do not typically organize their classes around ability groups. Rather, teachers assign the same challenging work to all students and differentiate the nature and amount of support they provide students to ensure all students are actively apprenticed to disciplinary ways of reading, writing, and talking about meaningful work. This kind of scaffolding also mitigates classroom motivation problems that ensue when students get bored and off-task because assignments are too easy, or get frustrated and off-task because assignments are too hard (e.g., Spaulding, 1995). In addition, these pedagogical practices can support teachers in constructing all students as having something valuable to contribute to knowledgebuilding in the classroom while affirming students’ identities as capable learners (Nieto & Bode, 2018). In other words, the TLC is a way to support all students regardless of their race, class, gender, or language proficiencies, in working within a zone of proximal development (ZPD). This zone is defined as the distance between what a learner is able to do unassisted and what they are capable of accomplishing with guidance from more expert peers and teachers in school and from siblings, family members, and other adults in their community outside of school (Vygotsky, 1978). In Vygotskian terms, this level of social and linguistic support enables teachers to build on students’ everyday or “spontaneous” ways of knowing to develop more “schooled” or “scientific” ways of talking, reading, and writing about subject matter knowledge in their home language and additional languages (Vygotsky, 88 Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle 1986, p. 148; in regard to ELLs’ classroom literacy development, see Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Walqui, 2006; Walqui & van Lier, 2010). The Teaching and Learning Cycle and Martin’s Genre Theory A key problem in schools is that designing effective literacy scaffolds can be difficult when teachers do not have an explicit knowledge of how language and other meaning-making systems work to construct discipline-specific meanings in the genres they routinely require students to read and write in their class. This problem was highlighted in Chapter Two, which described how a journalism teacher named Mr. Banks worked hard to support Celine, a former ELL and student of color, in writing an editorial about the topic of institutional racism in her school. Ultimately, he was not able to provide her with the kind of linguistic scaffolding she needed to publish her editorial for a wider audience. In the 1980s, this problem led to a highly productive collaboration between SFL scholars and teachers working in disadvantaged schools in Sydney, Australia. Led by Jim Martin, a student of Halliday’s, this group worked to create a classification system of the genres students are regularly required to read, write, and discuss in different disciplines as they advance in grades and the texts they encounter become increasingly specialized (Rose & Martin, 2012). These high-frequency genres include narratives, recounts, observations, explanations, and arguments. Martin and his colleagues argue that, like all genres, these types of texts are “staged, goal-oriented social processes [that draw on] recurrent configurations of meaning and enact the social practices of a given culture” (Martin & Rose, 2008, p. 6). Some register features typical of these school genres are shown in Table 4.2. In regard to the culture of schooling and disciplinary literacy practices, Martin and Rose (2008) note that as learners participate in expanding sociocultural contexts in and out of the classroom through their use of different genres, they are apprenticed, or not, to systems of knowledge and to participating in specialized cultural activities (e.g., community events, religious ceremonies, school-based tasks, professional organizations, political networks, and the like). To participate in these specialized activities, learners must expand their meaning-making repertoires as they advance in grades, enter college or the workforce, and participate in their communities as adults. However, Martin and Rose, similar to Halliday, maintain that as some students transition from home to elementary and then secondary schools, their access to learning how to use disciplinary genres and registers becomes more and more limited as schools offer a differentiated curriculum that tends to break down along race, class, gender, and language proficiency lines (see Chapter Eight). Martin and Rose (2008) conclude that this kind of differentiation reproduces class structures and economic inequities, particularly for students whose home language differs from the language of schooling. Therefore, one of the goals of Martin’s genre theory in relation to the TLC is to provide teachers with a research-based way of analyzing, naming, and teaching how the Narratives • Personal narratives • Narrative poetry • Ballads • Fables, myths, & folk tales • Science fiction • Fantasy • Romance • Horror • Mystery • Comic books & graphic novels • Films Recounts • Personal recounts • Historical recounts • Scientific recounts • Procedural recounts Genre To entertain and engage others in an interesting series of events; tends to have a message that is sometimes stated, but not always. Narratives can be fictional or non-fictional To tell what happened step-by-step in a personal event, a historical event, a science experiment, or an approach to solving a math problem Purpose in Different Disciplines Schleppegrell, 2004) Orientation or setting • Series of complications related to the development of the plot that leads to the climax of the narrative • Series of resolutions or falling actions resulting in the conclusion or denouement • Commentary on the meaning or the theme, but not always explicitly stated • Orientation that introduces the topic • Record of events sequenced in time • Commentary that provides a reaction or evaluation (optional) • Likely Genre Stages Verbs and nouns related to the topic Circumstances of time, manner, and place to support the discipline-specific nature of the recount (e.g. first, second, last) (Continued) Doing verbs to construct actions that move the plot along Sensing verbs to capture character’s internal world, thoughts, and feelings • Saying verbs to construct dialogue and character’s disposition and emotions • Specific proper nouns (e.g., Harry Potter, Hogwarts, 4 Privet Drive) • Packed noun groups to describe and add detail (e.g., the long, sharp blade dripping with blood) • Attitudinal language to express feelings, judge character’s behavior, and evaluate events • Circumstances to construct time and place in the orientation (e.g., one day), support the arc of the narrative (e.g., suddenly, in the end, even now), and add detail to sentences regarding when, where, how, and for what purposes something happened • Illustrations in children’s books, comics, and graphic novels • Images and sound in films • • • • Likely Register Features TABLE 4.2 High Frequency Genres Used to Construct Disciplinary Knowledge in School (Derewianka & Jones, 2016; Rose & Martin, 2012; Explanations • Causal explanations • Factorial explanations • Systems explanations Genre TABLE 4.2 (Continued) To explain how things work and why things happen (e.g., explanation of immigration patterns, causes of global warming, proving a mathematical statement) Purpose in Different Disciplines • • • Identification of the topic or phenomenon Sequencing of cause, factors, sequence of events, or parts of a system Generalization Likely Genre Stages • • • • • • • • • • Specialized verbs and nouns related to the topic Being/relating verbs (e.g., is, has, appears, seems, consists of, comprises, is defined as, symbolizes, represents, is called) Packed nouns groups to describe and add detail (e.g., a single-celled organism) Abstract nouns (e.g., photosynthesis, identity construction) Generalizable nouns or categories rather than proper names (e.g. governments, green plants, Native American authors) Repetition of key words, synonyms, and pronouns to build new information but still stay on the main topic Cohesive devices to clarify (e.g., for example, in other words, namely, specifically) Declarative sentences and modality to construct degrees of possibility or certainty (e.g., may, could, should, must) A more impersonal or detached voice to construct authority Graphics (e.g., graphs, pie charts, flow diagrams, Venn diagrams, classification system) Likely Register Features Arguments • Political speeches • Letters to the editor • Research papers that take a position on a scientific debate • Critical responses to literature, film, or artwork • Critical responses to a historical event To persuade people to do or think something (e.g., arguing for an interpretation of theme in a novel, arguing for or against a particular interpretation of a historical event, weighing evidence regarding a scientific discovery, using statistics to make an argument for or against something) • • • • • Statement of the issue that provides background, states a position, and previews the main argument points Argument 1: Makes point, provides elaboration, including sometimes a rebuttal or statement of opposing positions Argument 2: Makes point, provides elaboration, including sometimes a rebuttal or statement of opposing positions Argument 3: Makes point, provides elaboration, including sometimes a rebuttal or statement of opposing positions Reiteration of the position and calls for action or recommendations • • • • • • • • Specialized verbs and nouns related to the topic Use of statements, questions, and commands depending on the purpose and audience Repetition of key words, synonyms, and pronouns to build new information and still stay on the main topic Use of a more personal or detached voice varies based on the purpose and audience Saying verbs to report what others have said or think (e.g., states, claims, argues, suggests, points out, maintains, concludes) Use of modality to open up possibilities or strengthen claims (e.g., may, could, should, must) Attitudinal language to focus or adjust attitudes (e.g., extremely, utterly, entirely, absolutely, somewhat, possibly) Carefully selected cohesive devices to connect ideas in particular ways (e.g., adding information, marking time, indicating cause and effect, making concessions) 92 Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle genres of schooling are apt to be staged and how speakers/writers tend to make register level choices within a specific discipline to achieve particular social, academic, and political goals (e.g., Martin & Rose, 2008). The effectiveness of coupling Martin’s genre theory with the TLC has been demonstrated by a number of qualitative and quantitative studies conducted in Australia. For example, Gibbons (2003) analyzed how two elementary science teachers used the TLC to design a unit of study on magnetism to support multilingual students in shifting from everyday conversational ways of talking about magnets to more discipline-specific and abstract ones (e.g., “it sticks together” → “the north pole and the south pole attract,” p. 265). Gibbons reports that the TLC provided a framework for teachers to mediate between students’ everyday experiences with magnetism and more generalized knowledge of this topic in the science curriculum. As a result, students simultaneously developed new ways of using English and constructing disciplinary knowledge. In another study that focused on writing at the secondary level, Humphrey and Macnaught (2016) used mixed methods to analyze ninth-grade English students’ persuasive writing development over 18 months. In their study, students who spoke a variety of home languages showed growth in the logical development of ideas within paragraphs, the use of expanded noun groups to package key ideas, and the management of multiple points of view through the use of SFL-based pedagogical practices. These findings have been supported by large-scale quantitative analyses of classroom data. For example, Rose (2015) reported similar findings from a quasiexperimental study of literacy gains in an Australian middle school. This study analyzed pre- and post-TLC writing samples and standardized reading test scores from a target group of 310 struggling readers and writers, including students identified as ELLs. These data were analyzed alongside data from a comparison group of 377 higher performing students. Rose reports that the most significant finding was the accelerated rate of literacy gains in the target group. Average literacy gains for this group were consistently more than one grade level over the course of the intervention. Furthermore, 20% of these students made gains of two or more grade levels (Cullican, 2006; Rose, 2015). A Caveat It is important to note that genres, like all social practices, vary depending on the context of culture in which they evolve and the specific context of situation in which they are used, as demonstrated by the different emails analyzed at the beginning of this chapter. Therefore, the genre classification system shown in Table 4.2 is intended to heighten teachers’ awareness of how genres are often staged in predictable ways to get work done with language and other multimodal semiotic means (e.g., text layout, use of graphics, charts, and equations). However, teachers and students should keep in mind that genres, like cultures, Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle 93 change as speakers and writers invent new means of communicating to perform new social practices. Therefore, given the dynamic and creative nature of human activity and communication, there is no classification system or set of genre templates that will capture the great variety of multimodal/multilingual texts students read and write in and out of school. This caveat needs to be stressed because schools have historically strived for efficiency and standardization by behaviorally drilling and practicing text structures such as the five paragraph essay and attending almost exclusively to aspects of formal correctness such as spelling and punctuation. Paulo Freire, a social justice educator from Brazil, refers to this method of literacy teaching as coming from a “banking model of education” (1993, p. 72). This model is characterized by teachers attempting to deposit knowledge into the heads of passive learners through lecturing, memorization, and the testing of accepted facts—not the construction, reflection, and questioning of knowledge and language practices through a problem-posing approach to curriculum design. Therefore, it is important to stress that the TLC is designed to support joint construction and critical reflection on the meaning-making choices people make, not the rote learning of fixed linguistic forms. SFL, Genre Theory, and the TLC in the Context of U.S. School Reforms Inspired by the promising work of teachers and scholars in Australia, a growing number of literacy researchers and teacher educators in the United States have recontextualized SFL, genre theory, and the TLC to address persistent inequities related to language teaching and literacy development in U.S. schools, especially for historically marginalized, multilingual learners (e.g., Achugar & Carpenter, 2014; Aguirre-Muñoz, Chang, & Sanders, 2015; Berg & Huang, 2015; Brisk, 2014; de Oliveira, 2016; Fang, Sun, Chiu, & Trutschel, 2014; Gebhard & Willett, 2008; Harman, 2018; Schleppegrell, 2004). For the purposes of this chapter, I highlight three U.S. initiatives because of their longevity and record for producing empirical evidence regarding the benefits of SFL-informed teaching practices. The first, developed by Mary Schleppegrell, is an example of one of the earliest uses of SFL in teacher education in the United States. The second, directed by Maria Brisk, provides an example of a long-term university-school partnership in Boston. And the third, led by myself at others at the University of Massachusetts, is an example of how SFL informed an action research collaborative that included community members, two urban school districts, and university students and faculty. SFL in the California History Project and the Language and Meaning Project Mary Schleppegrell was one of the early implementers of an SFL-informed research agenda aimed at improving the disciplinary literacy practices of 94 Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle multilingual learners and the professional development of their teachers in the United States. Beginning in the late 1990s, Schleppegrell and her colleagues collaborated with teachers in California to analyze the academic language demands placed on students by state curricular frameworks and aligned exams. Collectively, they identified the genres teachers were required to teach and students were required to read and write in school. In addition, they made recommendations regarding how state frameworks could be revised and aligned to support all students, not just ELLs, in developing “pathways” to academic literacy across disciplines as they transitioned from elementary to secondary schools (Schleppegrell, 2003, p. 20). As part of this work, Schleppegrell and her colleagues developed the California History Project (CHP). This project introduced secondary history teachers to using SFL tools to deconstruct meanings in history textbook passages and primary source documents. CHP teachers planned lessons that incorporated SFL analysis and found that the approach enabled more in-depth discussions and understandings of history content (Achugar, Schleppegrell, & Oteíza, 2007). In summarizing their findings, they write that students whose teachers participated in CHP made significantly greater gains on the state exams in terms of their ability to demonstrate content knowledge and write academic arguments than students whose teachers had not participated in the workshops. Further, ELLs were among those who showed the greatest benefits (see also Schleppegrell & de Oliveira, 2006; Schleppegrell, Greer, & Taylor, 2008). Schleppegrell has continued this line of inquiry in a second project with elementary teachers of multilingual students in a high poverty school district in Michigan. As discussed in Chapter Three, the goals of this project, called The Language and Meaning Project, focused on designing curricular materials and researching how teachers and young multilingual students engaged with SFL tools as they read, wrote, and discussed English language arts and science texts (e.g., Moore & Schleppegrell, 2014). Findings from this project support the conclusions of earlier SFL studies and contribute new understandings regarding the benefits of students developing a functional metalanguage, or language for talking about how language works, in deconstructing and constructing challenging texts. As illustrated in Chapter Three, young ELLs used SFL metalanguage to develop content knowledge and a critical awareness of how authors, including themselves, make language choices to construct ideas, their voice, and the flow of information in grade-level reading and writing tasks (see also O’Hallaron & Schleppegrell, 2016; Palincsar & Schleppegrell, 2014; Schleppegrell, 2013). In reflecting on the findings from both projects, Schleppegrell (2015) makes clear that teachers are more likely to take up SFL when they see it as helping them meet state standards and adapting curricular materials they are required to use to achieve their instructional goals. Further, teachers are more likely to use SFL in productive ways when they see it as an effective pedagogical tool, not as an add-on language requirement detached from their primary goal of teaching Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle 95 content knowledge. Schleppegrell also comments on the benefits of “building teams of collaborating teachers, especially at the same school site” because teachers benefit greatly from designing curriculum with others while reflecting on student learning collectively. She adds that children also benefit “when their teachers talk about language in similar ways as they move from year to year and from subject to subject” (2015, p. 48). SFL and Whole School Change at Russell Elementary in Boston At the elementary level, another project that has received international recognition is Maria Brisk’s long-term professional development partnership with an elementary school in Boston (Brisk, 2014). In 2007, at the urging of the mayor, Brisk and colleagues from Boston College entered into this partnership with Russell Elementary School. At the time, this school served students of color from Latino, Haitian, Cape Verdean, and Vietnamese communities. Specifically, 58% identified as Latino, 26% as African American, 10% as Asian, and 6% as White. Of these, 51% were officially classified as ELLs. With the strong support of the principal, the goal of this project was to implement and research the impact of a school-wide approach to teaching writing using the TLC. As Brisk (2014) describes, focus genres included procedures, recounts, reports, explanations, arguments, and fictional narratives. During the first year of the partnership, a team of researchers worked with teachers in third, fourth, and fifth grade to focus on two core genres. In subsequent years, additional grade levels and genres were added. By year three, when teachers had gained a knowledge of how to teach each genre, the project shifted to supporting teachers and students in noticing how register choices work in disciplinary texts and how to draw on students’ multilingual resources to support the development of disciplinary knowledge and literacies (e.g., Brisk, Hodgson-Drysdale, & O’Connor, 2011; Brisk & Ossa Parra, 2018). In documenting the effectiveness of this ongoing collaboration, Brisk (2016) describes how in 2007, Russell was one of the lowest performing schools in Boston based on state test scores. Because of these low scores, Russell was designated a “Level 5” or “failing school” and was at risk of being taken over by the state. Ten years later, based on test scores that surpassed other Boston public schools, Russell was ranked a “Level 1” or “high performing” school. In accounting for this dramatic shift, Brisk (2016) credits the remarkable leadership of the principal and the sustained collaboration between teachers at Russell and colleagues at Boston College, which included yearly, monthly, and weekly workshops and meetings. For example, at the start of each year, Brisk and her colleagues led two-day professional development workshops organized around three central tasks: (1) to introduce teachers and administrators to SFL, genre theory, and the TLC; (2) to collectively reflect on students’ language and literacy development and propose priorities for the upcoming year; and (3) to 96 Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle collectively establish a calendar for when and how specific genres would be taught at each grade level over the course of the academic year. Teachers, administrators, and researchers also met monthly in grade-level teams to review goals, share curriculum materials, and reflect on student writing samples collected by researchers from Boston College who conducted weekly observations and collected classroom data. The reciprocal nature of this professional development partnership was an essential element of its success. Brisk (2016) comments on how the structure of the partnership provided learning opportunities for both faculty and students at Russell Elementary and Boston College. For example, she describes how courses for pre-service teachers at Boston College were revised to incorporate SFL, genre theory, and the TLC based on the ongoing work of teachers at Russell. Moreover, doctoral students were able to conduct research in collaboration with teachers and students and publish their findings as a way of further contributing to the field of literacy development and multilingual education. SFL and Action Research: The ACCELA Alliance The ACCELA (Access to Critical Content and Language Acquisition) Alliance is a third example of an SFL-informed professional development program. ACCELA received federal, state, and university funding between 2002 and 2014. The purpose of ACCELA was to support the professional learning of paraprofessionals, teachers, principals, doctoral students, teacher educators, and literacy researchers who were invested in developing more productive and equitable ways of responding to sweeping changes taking place in Massachusetts and other states. These changes included rapid demographic and economic shifts, the advent of the standardization and accountability movement, and the passage of anti-bilingual education mandates (see Chapters Six and Seven). Sonia Nieto, a faculty member who taught courses in multiculturalism and the Puerto Rican experience at UMass and in the ACCELA Alliance, captures the impetus for ACCELA in her analysis of U.S. census data from the year 2000: 18% of U.S. residents speak a language other than English at home, with Spanish the language spoken by half of these. Also in 2000, the number of foreign-born or first-generation U.S. residents reached the highest level in U.S. history, 56 million, or triple the number in 1970. And unlike previous immigrants who were primarily from Europe, only 15% are now from Europe, with over half from Latin America and a quarter from Asia . . . Poverty too continues to be a serious problem in our nation . . . While Whites represent just over 9% of the poor, Blacks are over 22% and Hispanics over 21% of those living in poverty. These numbers also point to a chronic problem in terms of teacher retention: The turnover rate for teachers in high-poverty schools can climb as high as Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle 97 50%, creating even more uncertainty and unpredictability in such schools. At the same time that the number of students of color, those who speak languages other than English, and those who live in poverty has increased, the nation’s teachers have become more monolithic, monocultural, and monolingual. (2005, pp. 5–6) In summarizing the implications of these changes, Nieto makes clear that teacher educators today need to grapple with what it means to recruit, prepare, and retain teachers to work with students who in many cases will have very different backgrounds and experiences from them. And while she recognizes the fact that social and economic structures contribute to these issues and constrain meaningful change, she argues that: we cannot afford to sit around and wait for these structural changes to take place. They do not appear to be happening any time soon and, in the meantime, too many young people are being lost. The times call for working on what can be done to help keep the most caring and committed teachers in our public schools. (Nieto, 2005, p. 8) With this sense of urgency, Jerri Willett, a critical literacy scholar at UMass, spearheaded the development of the ACCELA Alliance in 2002. The Alliance brought together faculty from the University of Massachusetts with professionals and community members from two urban school districts serving large numbers of students designated as ELLs, many of whom had strong ties to Puerto Rico. ACCELA consisted of three programs of study. The first, directed by Theresa Austin, supported bilingual paraprofessionals and community leaders in completing an off-campus bachelor’s degree in general studies (e.g., Austin, Willett, Gebhard, & Montes, 2010; Correa, 2010). The second, directed by Jerri Willett and me, supported practicing elementary and secondary teachers in earning a master’s degree in education and an additional license to teach ESL and/or reading (e.g., Gebhard & Willett, 2008). The third was a doctoral program that supported predominantly multilingual doctoral students in using ethnographic methods and SFL tools to collect and analyze data with classroom teachers (e.g., Accurso, Gebhard, & Selden, 2016; Gebhard, Harman, & Seger, 2007; Gebhard, Shin, & Seger, 2011). All three programs offered off-campus courses that were held in local schools and other community settings. More importantly, following a praxis approach (Freire, 1993), these courses were designed to support participants in: • • • Identifying culturally relevant topics or problems to guide the learning of new disciplinary knowledge and literacy practices; Understanding sociocultural perspectives of language, learning, and change; Understanding state and national standards and assessment systems from a critical perspective; 98 Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle • Collecting, analyzing, and reflecting on data from the community and/or schools in collaborative groups comprised of local educators, doctoral students, and UMass faculty; and Producing action research studies to be shared with community members, colleagues in schools, in teacher education courses, and at regional, national, and international conferences. • The broad goal of ACCELA was reciprocal learning in which the expertise of all participants, especially multilinguals, was cultivated. In the words of post-colonial scholar Homi Bhabha, this created a “third space” that was not representative of the culture of the university, the school, or the community (1994, p. 36); rather, it was a hybrid of all three. This hybrid space was socially constructed through the use of linguistic and cultural practices associated with students’ and teachers’ home worlds and school worlds, as well as the university world of theory and research. This hybrid third space provided the “mediational context and tools necessary for future social and cognitive development” (Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, Alvarez, & Chiu, 1999, p. 92). Over the twelve years that ACCELA existed, it attempted to create hybrid pedagogical spaces that simultaneously supported multilingualism, students’ disciplinary literacy practices in English, and educators’ professional development. It did so through the use of action research projects that required teams of teachers and literacy researchers to use SFL tools and the TLC to identify content objectives, disciplinary literacy objectives, and social justice objectives. ACCELA incorporated a very explicit focus on praxis (Freire, 1993) by drawing on students’ and teachers’ linguistic and cultural funds of knowledge to make content-based curriculum more effective, engaging, and culturally relevant (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzáles, 1992; Nieto & Bode, 2018). ACCELA’s Approach to the TLC ACCELA faculty modified the original TLC to support teachers in conducting action research projects as part of meeting course requirements, completing licensure requirements, and contributing to the knowledge base of teaching. As illustrated in Figure 4.2, the result was a expanded, ten-staged approach to planning and teaching culturally relevant curricular units aligned with state and national standards, critically reflecting on student learning, and sharing findings from action research projects to build the institutional capacity of local school districts and the university in regard to the education of multilingual and multicultural learners. In what follows, each stage of this expanded TLC is explained with examples from the work of ACCELA teachers who collaborated with doctoral students to publish their work in leading journals in the field of language and literacy development. These examples focus mostly on the work of elementary teachers. However, additional examples provided in Chapters Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle 99 FIGURE 4.2 The expanded teaching and learning cycle (TLC) – an approach to supporting multilingual students’ literacies and teachers’ professional development through action research Five and Nine focus on secondary classrooms and the disciplines of math and science. Across these examples, note that, similar to Maria Brisk’s (2014) work at Russell Elementary, ACCELA teachers typically used the TLC to first focus on one genre essential to their curriculum standards and then progressed to other genres in purposeful ways. ACCELA teachers who followed this example first taught students the same genre over multiple curricular units, but varied the content or field. With each go-around of the expanded, ten-stage TLC, teachers gained greater expertise in using SFL and the TLC, while students strengthened their ability to read and write discipline-specific texts that were longer, more coherent, and of overall higher quality (e.g., Gebhard, Chen, & Britton, 2014; Gebhard, Shin, & Seger, 2011; Gebhard, Willett, Jiménez Caicedo, & Piedra, 2011). 100 Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle Stage One: Planning Linguistically and Culturally Responsive Curriculum As many teachers can attest, careful planning is the starting point of successful instruction, even for teachers with years of experience. During this comprehensive planning stage, ACCELA teachers developed a deeper and more critical understanding of: • • • • The linguistic and cultural resources students bring to their education and a knowledge of the communities from which students come; Subject matter knowledge and ways of connecting subject matter knowledge to students’ lives; The priorities of school administrators in the context of high-stakes testing practices; and State and national standards and assessment systems. Using a backwards design approach (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005), ACCELA teachers planned curricular units by first identifying a pressing issue or topic of cultural relevance to their students. Second, they stipulated the specific genre they were going to target as a way of teaching all students how to read, write, and critically discuss grade-level subject matter knowledge about this topic. Third, teachers specified which state and/or national standards their unit and daily lessons addressed and began to brainstorm how these standards would be taught and assessed. Teachers drew on their emerging knowledge of SFL and genre theory to accomplish this aspect of planning standards-based curriculum, instruction, and assessments in ways that were aligned with students’ interests, investments, and linguistic and cultural funds of knowledge. In attempting to translate SFL and genre theory into standards-based classroom practices, it is important to note that ACCELA teachers did not need to become SFL experts before they got started using SFL concepts. Rather, teachers were encouraged to identify one or two SFL tools that might help them get some leverage on a problem they and their students faced in engaging with dense disciplinary discourses. As one ACCELA teacher named Lynne Britton remarked, “A little SFL and genre theory goes a long way” (Gebhard, Chen, & Britton, 2014, p. 123). She reported that it enabled her to go “deeper into texts” with students in ways that were anchored to what “they can do with language now and what they need to learn next to move along a linguistic pathway that makes developmental sense” (p. 123). She contrasted this approach to the disjointed “curriculum surfing” she felt characterized her approach to designing curriculum in the past. In addition, she reported that a little SFL and genre theory allowed her to connect, rather than separate, the teaching of vocabulary, grammar, reading, writing, and content knowledge in ways that built students’ academic literacy practices over time rather than “jumping from topic to topic and genre to genre” (p. 123). Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle 101 Echoing Lynne’s experiences, other ACCELA teachers used the expanded TLC to plan units that reflected: (1) their students’ investment in writing for a wider audience about an issue of relevance; (2) a high-stakes genre students needed to learn how to read, write, discuss, and critique to be successful in school; and (3) specific content standards teachers were required to address. For example, a second grade ACCELA teacher named Wendy Seger planned units that supported her multilingual students in blogging with family and friends locally and in Puerto Rico to teach them how to read, write, and critique recounts, reports, friendly letters, and persuasive letters, all while addressing Massachusetts English language arts standards (Gebhard, Shin, & Seger, 2011). At the upper elementary level, a fourth grade teacher named Amy Rivera Piedra planned a unit around how to write more expert personal narratives by analyzing the genre and register features found in mandated textbook materials and in personal narratives written by Puerto Rican authors. In doing so, she also targeted specific Massachusetts English language arts standards (Gebhard, Willett, Jiménez Caicedo, & Piedra, 2011). And at the secondary level, Holly Graham, an ACCELA doctoral student who returned to teaching, planned a unit to support her multilingual middle school students in meeting a wide variety of new standards (Common Core State Standards, Next Generation Science Standards, and WIDA Standards) by writing advocacy letters to the federal government on behalf of a local species of bat that was being decimated by a disease called “White Nose Syndrome” (Gebhard & Graham, 2018). Stage Two: Identifying Model Texts and Determining Assessment Criteria for Students’ Final Projects During the second planning stage of the expanded TLC, ACCELA teachers were encouraged to identify published model texts and/or write their own model texts to support students in learning new disciplinary knowledge and developing associated genre knowledge. This stage is meant to address current school reforms that place more emphasis on teaching students how to read more critically and write more expertly across grade levels and in all content areas, including in mathematics and science classrooms (e.g., Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards; see Chapters Six, Seven, and Nine). For example, in planning her fourth grade personal narrative unit, Amy Rivera Piedra was required to use a mandated textbook that included pre-selected model texts. However, she augmented the mandated materials with a narrative written by the acclaimed Puerto Rican children’s author, Eric Velasquez. She and the class paraprofessional also wrote their own model texts, personal narratives about their experiences growing up as Puerto Ricans. Amy planned to have her students read, discuss, and analyze the linguistic choices made by all these different narrative authors. Amy also developed an SFL-informed rubric to assess students’ abilities to produce their own compelling personal narratives at the end of this unit (Gebhard et al., 2011). This rubric, titled “Are you on your way to 102 Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle expert writing?”, captured the criteria Amy planned to use in assessing students’ final projects. Based on the standards Amy targeted in her unit and the linguistic choices she noticed in the model texts, these criteria included: • • • An orientation that introduces the characters and setting and provides the context for the main complication in the story. The writer uses circumstances of time and place as well as longer noun groups to describe people and the setting. A complication that is constructed through a sequence of events that builds the plot through verbs that capture what characters did (doing verbs), what they said (saying verbs), and how they felt (sensing verbs) in response to problems and events in the narrative. The writer selects verbs that are precise and varied. In addition, the writer uses time markers such as one day, next, then, all of a sudden, after that, in the end, and even now as a way of building the arc of the narrative. A resolution or an attempt to resolve the problem. This conclusion often includes the characters’ reflections through the use of sensing verbs or a comment by the narrator to make the point of the story explicit. Building on Amy’s work, other ACCELA teachers developed SFL rubrics aligned with Massachusetts English language arts standards, as well. For example, Figure 4.3 shows a rubric developed by Jackie Bell to guide her in teaching and assessing narratives written by multilingual students in her second grade general education class. In preparing this unit, she quoted the specific Massachusetts English language arts standards she was targeting: Students will be able to write a narrative in which they recount a wellelaborated or short sequence of events, including details to describe actions, thoughts, and feelings and use of temporal words to signal events in order and provide a sense of closure. (MA.W.3) The rubric she developed reflects this standard and demonstrates her knowledge of the genre and register features of a narrative and the criteria she used to assess students’ final projects. This rubric captures the same expected genre stages of a narrative that Amy focused on, including an orientation, complication, and resolution. However, Jackie’s rubric used a scale of 1 to 3 (lowest to highest) to outline some expected register features for each genre stage. For example, a Level 3 orientation included “describing words to tell about characters in the story, adjectives to describe the setting, and language about time to tell when the story happened.” Similarly, a Level 3 complication would “tell about a problem using language in order through a series of events.” Last, she defined a Level 3 resolution as an “ending [that] is interesting, makes sense, and tells how the problem got solved.” Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle 103 FIGURE 4.3 A genre based rubric used to assess second-grade grade students’ narratives and to guide the planning of scaffolding activities Stage Three: Building the Field of Knowledge Stage Three is the first instructional stage of the expanded TLC. The TLC approach makes clear that it is crucial to level the playing field for students with different levels of background knowledge and language proficiency before assigning challenging reading and writing assignments. During this stage, teachers do this by first drawing on what students already know and can do with language, and then scaffolding deeper content and genre knowledge through hands-on tasks and discussion. Moreover, this stage of the TLC consists of much more than asking students to brainstorm on a topic for five minutes and then diving into a demanding text. Rather, this stage requires teachers to carefully design several lessons to immerse students in a specific field of knowledge through engagement with images, video clips, discussion questions, and the use of oral and written materials in the students’ home language(s) and English, all with clearly defined subject matter and literacy objectives in mind. For example, in designing a social studies unit to teach Puerto Rican third graders about Puerto Rican migration, Lynne Britton designed several pre-reading activities over the course of a week to develop students’ understanding of this topic and the specific linguistic resources they needed to develop to be successful 104 Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle in reading and writing grade-level texts about this topic in English. With Lynne’s guidance, students brainstormed interview questions in Spanish and English for family members who had migrated to Massachusetts. Then, for homework, students used these questions to interview their family members about why they had migrated. When students returned to class the next day, they shared their responses, which Lynne categorized and graphed on chart paper. On the y-axis the class tallied families’ reasons for migrating and on the x-axis they tallied the number of responses in each category. This discussion and charting activity, conducted using both Spanish and English, captured the knowledge and experiences of families in the local community regarding the topic of migration. These reasons included education, employment, access to health care, and family. With Lynne’s continued assistance, these activities prepared students to read gradelevel explanations of Puerto Rican migration in English (Gebhard, Chen, & Britton, 2014). Stage Four: Modeling Reading Through Text Deconstruction This stage involves guiding students as a whole class and in small groups in noticing and naming how specific genres are structured and how authors make specific register choices to construct ideas (field), enact a tone (tenor), and manage the flow of information in their texts (mode). It is important to note that ACCELA teachers did not ask students to notice and name all of these aspects of language at once. Rather, they targeted a few carefully selected genre and register features reflective of the instructional goals they established during Stage One. In addition, as Derewianka and Jones (2016) remark, students need multiple experiences with a new genre before genre knowledge can become internalized. For example, as discussed previously, Amy Rivera Piedra designed a unit that required fourth grade multilinguals in a general education class to read, analyze, and write personal narratives. During this text deconstruction stage of the expanded TLC, Amy introduced students to the narrative rubric she had created as a way of drawing their attention to the genre and register features of this specific type of text. She had students use the rubric as a reading tool, to analyze three different model narratives. The first narrative was written by a well-known Puerto Rican children’s author, the second was written by Amy, and the third by the class paraprofessional. Later in the unit, when students were writing their own narratives during Stage Six of the expanded TLC, they used this same rubric to analyze and give feedback to a peer, and they also analyzed, revised, and self-assessed their own narrative. And given that narrative is an essential genre in the discipline of language arts, Amy used many of these same guided reading activities and handouts to teach subsequent units during the academic year that also focused on narratives written by award-winning Latinx authors, including a unit planned around the novel My Name is Maria Isabel by Alma Flor Ada (1993). Each time Amy practiced modeling reading Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle 105 in this way, she gained greater expertise in using SFL and the TLC, while her students strengthened their ability to read discipline-specific texts. Stage Five: Modeling Writing Through Joint Text Construction By this midpoint in the expanded TLC, all students should have a very clear understanding of the purpose of the writing project they are producing during the unit and how their work will be assessed in regard to content knowledge and the disciplinary literacy practices that construct this knowledge. Having this understanding, as well as access to model texts and other social supports, alleviates a lot of the guess work, stress, and writer’s block students experience when they have to write an extended text about new content knowledge, whether in their first language or an additional one. Moreover, at this point in the TLC, students should have been guided in reading and deconstructing carefully selected texts, so they are well prepared for the demands of writing a similar text (e.g., a specific type of recount, narrative, explanation, or argument). During this stage, ACCELA teachers built on how they scaffolded disciplinary reading practices to scaffold similar writing practices. Teachers prepared students for grade-level writing tasks by engaging them in a whole class activity called jointly constructing a model text. Similar to the joint construction of an email discussed previously, this stage involves teachers facilitating the production of an expert model text with student input. The goal of this stage, which may extend for several lessons, is to make linguistic know-how and decision-making highly visible and open to discussion. This stage is also designed to further expand students’ linguistic repertoires and critical awareness of the linguistic choices available to them in producing disciplinary texts. For example, in modeling how to write a personal narrative for her fourth graders, Amy focused students’ attention on how they could write effective dialogue that captured not just what characters said, but how they felt about what they were saying. Importantly, this focus on dialogue lesson aligned with her unit objectives and the criteria listed on her rubric. In addition to students brainstorming lists of different saying verbs that also construct emotion (e.g., whispered, mumbled, stated, claimed, yelled, screamed, roared), she asked students to think about the use of code-mixing in narrative dialogue, particularly in model texts they had read. As a class, they decided that it was important for one of the characters in their jointly constructed narrative to speak Spanish rather than English. Together, students wrote the dialogue with Amy in ways that drew attention to the diverse and purposeful uses of code-mixing in “translanguaging” literature (see Sommer, 2004). In another example of modeling writing through joint text construction, an ACCELA teacher named Rachel Ellis used a large sheet of chart paper tacked up on the blackboard to jointly construct a personal narrative with her multilingual third graders. Their story relates the experiences of a boy who was not happy 106 Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle that his parents painted his baby furniture pink in redoing a bedroom for his new sister. As shown in Figure 4.4, Rachel scaffolded the joint construction process by providing students with language from the rubric she created during Stage Two. On the left side of the chart paper, she listed three genre stages: orientation, complication, and resolution. Students had grown accustomed to using these words over the course of the year in reading, writing, and class discussions. On sticky notes beneath each genre stage, Rachel listed examples of key register choices that might support students in accomplishing the purpose of the genre stage. For example, under “orientation,” she posted sticky notes reminding students to use describing words in telling “where” and “when” a story takes place and “who” is involved. Under “complication,” she listed key time markers to remind students of some of the ways authors use language to make their stories flow (e.g., “one FIGURE 4.4 Joint construction of a personal narrative in a third grade class Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle 107 day,” “next,” “finally”). And under “resolution,” she wrote “how the problem gets solved or not.” Next, she provided students with a graphic of how each genre stage maps onto the arc of a narrative. And finally, on the right, she scribed students’ oral contributions as the class jointly constructed a story. Stage Six: Constructing a Disciplinary Text More Independently Stage Six builds on all of the other stages and requires students to produce a text with much less guidance from teachers, peers, and family members. However, ACCELA teachers’ expectation was rarely that their students would produce disciplinary texts entirely on their own during this stage of the TLC. Thus, the word “independent” in the name of this stage can be a bit of a misnomer because teachers were encouraged to couple the TLC with the process approach of teaching writing to provide students with opportunities to get feedback from their peers, family members, and teachers when drafting, revising, and editing their work (e.g., Atwell, 1987). Stage Seven: Presenting Work to an Authentic Audience A key part of literacy teaching using the expanded TLC is identifying an expanded audience for students’ projects as a way of potentially motivating students to invest in the hard work of learning to read and write in new ways and of making questions regarding the purpose and audience for students’ work more concrete and less hypothetical. In my experiences working with students of all ages, I have found they are not always motivated to complete a demanding written assignment if the audience is only the teacher and if the purpose, from their perspective, is just to complete an assignment to get a grade. This lack of motivation can be especially acute if students have a history of getting poor grades and have come to feel badly about themselves as readers and writers. Therefore, Stage Seven of the expanded TLC draws on Anne Dyson’s (1993) notion of designing a permeable curriculum that not only makes use of students’ linguistic and cultural funds of knowledge, but also puts them in dialogue with a wider audience than the teacher. ACCELA teachers took up this suggestion in ways that fit with what they were already doing prior to entering the program. For example, teachers required students to present their work to classmates, posted students’ writing on bulletin boards, and displayed students’ work at community events such as open houses. However, based on ACCELA coursework, many teachers made an additional effort to connect with students’ families and communities. For example, Amy planned a culminating event for students’ families to showcase their narrative writing. At the event, she served Puerto Rican dishes such as arroz con gandules and played the song En mi Viejo San Juan, an anthem for many Puerto Ricans 108 Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle that was featured in one of the model texts students had read during Stage Four, Grandma’s Records (Velasquez, 2001). In addition, the ACCELA doctoral student working with Amy, Juan Pablo Jiménez Caicedo, played a variety of versions of this song at this event, which led to a spontaneous dance party as students, teachers, and parents moved desks out of the way to make room for a dance floor. This event enabled Amy and other staff to interact with families around something positive and upbeat rather than the topics that normally led Amy and the administration to contact parents (e.g., social, academic, and behavioral problems, see Gebhard et al., 2011). Other examples of ACCELA teachers expanding the purpose and audience of students’ work included letter-writing campaigns to school administrators and government officials. For example, Wendy Seger’s fifth grade students researched the benefits of recess so that they could write persuasive letters to their principal about reinstating their afternoon recess, something that had been removed from their schedules to make more time for test preparation. The principal was so impressed with the quality of the students’ writing that he agreed to do so (Gebhard, Harman, & Seger, 2007). Stage Eight: Assessing Student Work Assessment tends to provoke anxiety in students, especially multilingual learners using a new language for academic purposes. It is also time-consuming for teachers, especially those who assign a lot of writing. However, some ACCELA teachers found grading student work to be less time-consuming, less discouraging, and actually rewarding when they began using SFL-informed rubrics to track changes in their students’ literacy practices over time. These teachers were skillful in using a backwards design approach where they clearly articulated the assessment criteria for students’ final projects during Stage Two of the TLC and then used Stages Four, Five, Six, and Seven to apprentice students to meeting these criteria (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). For example, at the elementary level, Lynne Britton designed a series of three units focused on the genre of explanations in different disciplines. Her first unit focused on factorial explanations regarding Puerto Rican migration. The second unit focused on biographical explanations, with a focus on the life of Sonia Sotomayor, the first Puerto Rican U.S. Supreme Court Judge. The third unit focused on scientific explanations of climate and weather patterns in Puerto Rico and Massachusetts. As she was planning these units, Lynne noted that her students habitually linked run-on sentences with the word and regardless of the genre they were producing. As a result, she set an objective to expand students’ ability to notice and name a greater variety of cohesive devices that are more functional for creating the logical relationships needed to explain a phenomenon. Specifically, she identified authors’ use of time-order words and dates in historical explanations (e.g., In 1954, later, from 1979–1984, finally in 1992) and causal words in Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle 109 scientific explanations (e.g., as a result, therefore, for these reasons). She included these criteria in the assessment rubrics she designed for use in Stages Four through Eight of the TLC. In addition, Lynne included class participation criteria in her assessment materials to address her social justice goals for these units, which, in addition to focusing on culturally relevant topics and having high expectations for students, included supporting students to participate in class in ways that fostered collective learning (Gebhard, Chen, & Britton, 2014). Importantly, Lynne approached assessment from the perspective of not just giving grades, but from wanting to reflect on student learning and her teaching practices so she could better identify new content, literacy, and equity goals in developing future units of instruction. She also found presenting analyses of her students’ literacy practices to other colleagues and literacy researchers at local, state, and national conferences a rewarding form of professional development that resulted in new professional opportunities. These aspects of an action research approach to pedagogy—critical reflection and professional development—are captured in Stages Nine and Ten of the expanded TLC. Stage Nine: Critically Reflecting on Instruction Through Data Collection and Analysis As a structured way of reflecting on their instruction and the impact it had on students, ACCELA teachers completed a number of action research projects. These projects were connected to required coursework and state assessments required for licensure. These requirements, similar to those in most U.S. teacher licensure programs, included a case study of a learner, the design of a curricular unit, an analysis of the impact of teaching practices on student learning, and a capstone leadership project. To guide ACCELA teachers in meeting their licensure requirements as well as connecting theory to practice, action research projects included: • • • • Profiling the local communities and schools where they were teaching (see Chapter Eight); Analyzing classroom discourse practices using transcribed audio/video data (see Chapter Three); Collecting samples of student writing and tracing changes in a focus student’s ability to produce a target genre more expertly over time (see Chapter Nine); and Critically analyzing the content and literacy demands of state curricular frameworks and aligned high-stakes exams (see Chapters Six and Seven). For example, to critically reflect on her practice and its impact on student learning, Lynne Britton collected data on changes in three focus students’ literacy practices over an academic year. Her primary focus was on analyzing changes in 110 Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle FIGURE 4.5 Lynne’s focal students’ Fountas and Pinnell reading scores students’ abilities to produce two different genres, narratives and explanations. However, she was also required by her school to assess students’ reading development using the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System (Fountas & Pinnell, 2008). This system provides a formative assessment of K-8 students’ abilities in the domains of decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. This instrument was not field tested with bilingual learners and is considered to be a more subjective measure than others because it is administered by classroom teachers in ways that may vary or be biased. Nonetheless, as Lynne implemented the TLC, she noticed gains in all three of her focus students’ reading scores, with the greatest gains made by a newcomer named “Damaris” (see Figure 4.5).1 In making sense of these findings, Lynne worked with an ACCELA doctoral student named I-An Chen. They noticed that the Fountas and Pinnell system assesses students’ abilities to read increasingly demanding fiction and non-fiction texts on a gradient from Level A–Z. At level A, aligned with the types of texts students encounter in kindergarten, students were assessed on their ability to read short sentences about everyday topics realized through simple grammatical patterns (subject-verb-object). At level Z, aligned with the types of texts students encounter in grade 8, students were assessed on their ability to read longer, discipline-specific passages that realize meaning through denser grammatical constructions and technical word choices. The fiction texts tend to be narratives exhibiting canonical narrative genre and register features, while the nonfiction texts tend to be scientific explanations, scientific reports, or biographical explanations—all text types that Lynne and her students had analyzed over the course of the year. While we certainly cannot make any causal claims regarding Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle 111 students’ gains in reading these genres given the enormous number of factors that could have contributed to their reading development over the year (e.g., general cognitive maturity, reading and writing activities in other classes and at home), we can speculate that their close study of narratives and explanations over the academic year supported the development of their academic reading abilities as well (Gebhard, Chen, & Britton, 2014). Stage Ten: Sharing Findings From Action Research The final stage of the expanded TLC is focused on professional development. This stage draws on the work of Marilyn Cochran-Smith and Susan Lytle (1993), whose highly influential book Inside/Outside: Teacher Research and Knowledge argues that teachers’ professional development can be greatly enhanced if they participate in conducting research inside their own classrooms rather than reading about research conducted in someone else’s. These authors also argue that teachers can play an important role in contributing to the knowledge base of teaching and learning from their insider perspective. However, since the passage of No Child Left Behind in 2002, the concept of teacher research has received less and less attention. As Chapters Six and Seven will discuss, this has happened because school reforms have shifted away from building the institutional capacity of schools by funding robust forms of professional development toward mandating more standards and ways of holding teachers accountable for meeting these standards through costly assessment systems (e.g., Spring, 2014). Therefore, one of the goals of ACCELA was to resurrect Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (1993) conception of teachers as producers of knowledge from inside their classrooms and to provide venues for them to present findings from their research to others outside their immediate contexts as a way of contributing to the knowledge base of what teachers need to know and be able to do. For example, as part of meeting the requirements for their degrees, ACCELA teachers presented findings from their action research projects to other ACCELA teachers, school administrators, and UMass faculty at ACCELA-sponsored events. In addition, many teachers continued to collaborate with UMass doctoral students and faculty after completing the program. These teachers presented their research at state, national, and international conferences, and published their work as book chapters or journal articles in the field of language and literacy development. Summary This chapter supports teachers, teacher educators, and literacy researchers in translating SFL and genre theory into culturally relevant and effective pedagogy for multilingual learners. This chapter builds on previous discussions to Halliday’s SFL to further develop a model of text/context dynamics in K-12 schools (see 112 Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle Figure 4.1). It provides a discussion of the concept of register, which refers to the collective field, tenor, and mode choices a person makes in a particular context of situation. In addition, this chapter introduced Martin’s genre theory and the teaching and learning cycle (TLC) as means for exploring and teaching the context of culture of different disciplines in elementary and secondary schools. Next, this chapter briefly described how Mary Schleppegrell, Maria Brisk, and their colleagues used SFL-informed professional development practices to support teachers in designing and implementing disciplinary literacy teaching for multilingual students in K-12 schools in the United States. Last, this chapter provided a detailed discussion of how participants in the ACCELA Alliance recontextualized the TLC to respond to current problems facing teachers and students working in urban schools in Massachusetts. ACCELA participants expanded the TLC to include stages that focus on planning culturally responsive and standardsbased curricular units; critically reflecting on student learning and equity issues through data collection and analysis; and disseminating findings to a wider audience of teachers, administrators, literacy researchers, and policy makers. Praxis Planning a Curricular Unit Using the Expanded TLC Working in collaborative groups, use the expanded TLC to plan a curricular unit that is both culturally responsive and standards-based. The tasks below target Stage One: Planning Linguistically and Culturally Responsive Curriculum (see Figure 4.2). In particular, these tasks are designed to support your group in charting connections between state standards, content knowledge, and genre knowledge; establishing content objectives and language objectives for a curricular unit; and becoming familiar with the genre and register features students need to critically notice and strategically use to meet the objectives of the unit you are planning. Task Directions and Topics for Discussion 1. 2. Review the curriculum frameworks and/or state standards your students are required to meet and the genres they are typically required to read and write in your discipline, especially on high-stakes exams. If you are expected to adhere to a particular textbook, review the disciplinary topics and genres in this textbook as well. Brainstorm a list of three to five core disciplinary concepts students are required to know and the main genres used to construct this knowledge in your content area based on your review of curricular frameworks and your emerging understanding of genres. Use Table 4.A to chart the connection between state standards, content knowledge, and genre knowledge. For Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle 113 example, if you teach English language arts, state standards typically require students know the elements of fiction and that they develop this knowledge by reading, writing, and discussing literary narratives. Likewise, if you teach science, state standards typically require students know how species are classified and that they develop this knowledge by reading, writing, and discussing scientific explanations. TABLE 4.A Planning Standards-Based Curriculum Using the Expanded TLC PLANNING STANDARDS-BASED CURRICULUM USING THE EXPANDED TLC State standard Disciplinary Genre (e.g., types of recounts, narratives, explanations, content knowledge arguments, reports, procedures, etc.) 3. Reflect on fieldwork conducted in previous praxis sections (e.g., classroom observations, knowledge of students and their communities, knowledge of the school and classroom context, understanding of classroom discourse practices). Based on your fieldwork, begin planning a curriculum unit using the expanded TLC by identifying: a. A content focus for the unit (e.g., knowledge of animal classification systems); b. A genre focus (e.g., scientific explanations of animal classification systems); and c. Concrete ways of drawing on students’ linguistic and cultural resources to support them in exploring this content area in culturally relevant and responsive ways (e.g., use of multilingual materials, expanding the audience for students’ written work to achieve a specific purpose in communicating with a specific audience, targeting a specific equity issue). 4. Become familiar with the genre and register features of the type of text you have targeted for this unit of instruction. Your group can accomplish this task by reviewing Table 4.2. In addition, conduct independent research regarding how SFL scholars have identified the genre stages and register features central to teaching and learning disciplinary knowledge in your specific content area and at the grade level of your students. Do this by conducting a quick online search of articles and book chapters using search terms such as SFL, teaching and learning cycle, genre, the name of the target genre, and the content area you will teach. This search is likely to produce a list of article-length treatments of SFL pedagogical practices that will be helpful 114 Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle in developing a deeper understanding of how language and other meaningmaking systems work in the specific genres your students are required to read, write, and critically analyze in your content area. In addition, the following are excellent references: a. For elementary, see Brisk (2014) b. For middle school, see Humphrey (2017) c. For K-12 in different disciplines, see Christie & Derewianka (2008), Derewianka and Jones (2016), and Schleppegrell (2004) d. In mathematics, see O’Halloran (2000) e. In science, see Fang (2005) f. In history, see Coffin (2009) g. In English language arts, see Macken-Horarik, Love, Sandiford, and Unsworth (2018). 5. Based on your emerging understanding of SFL and genre theory, use Table 4.B to construct a table similar to Table 4.1 that captures the expected genre and register features for the type of disciplinary text you are teaching. This table should list the typical genre stages and register features used to realize this genre’s purpose within a given context of culture. Note: Genres are not templates and register features vary greatly depending on a text’s purpose and audience. Therefore, the goal of this task is to support you in developing an explicit understanding of how meaning is often, but not always, made in the specific type of text you will deconstruct and jointly construct with students when implementing the expanded TLC. TABLE 4.B Description of Expected Genre and Register Features for Targeted Disciplinary Text DESCRIPTION OF EXPECTED GENRE AND REGISTER FEATURES FOR TARGETED DISCIPLINARY TEXT Name and function of expected genre stage Field patterns (e.g., use of types of verbs, noun groups, adverbs, and prepositional phrases) Tenor patterns (e.g., use of statements of fact, questions, or commands; use of modal verbs; use of attitudinal language) Mode patterns (e.g., ways of weaving given and new information together; use of specific cohesive devises) *add more rows to capture additional genre stages and their register features as necessary 6. Identify three readings focusing on the same topic and representing the same genre. Pick texts you are likely to require your students to read. Make copies of these texts to share with your group. These texts can come from Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle 115 7. mandated textbooks or other sources. As a group, analyze the genre stages and register features of these three texts in ways that follow this chapter’s discussion of emails. Using different colored markers, highlight the genre stages of the text and key register features related to field, tenor, and mode choices. Given that this is your first attempt, do not worry about coming to 100% agreement. Rather, the goal is for your group to notice and name patterns in order to be able to support students in also noticing and naming patterns in the types of texts they must be able to read, write, and critically discuss in and out of school. Collectively reflect on your first attempt to analyze the genre and register features of the type of text you will assign students to read and write in the future. How might your analysis guide you in designing instruction using the expanded TLC? In addition, how culturally responsive are the texts you selected in relation to the students and community where you work or are likely to work in the future? How might you include texts that draw on community funds of knowledge and address topics relevant to this community? Note 1 Reprinted from “Miss, nominalization is a nominalization”: English language learners’ use of SFL metalanguage and their literacy practices. M. Gebhard, I. Chen, & L. Britton, 2014, Linguistics and Education, 26, 106–125. Reprinted with permission. References Accurso, K., Gebhard, M., & Selden, C. (2016). Supporting L2 elementary science writing with SFL in an age of school reform. In L.C. de Oliveira & T. Silva (Eds.), Second language writing in elementary classrooms: Instructional issues, content-area writing and teacher education (pp. 126–150). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Achugar, M., & Carpenter, B.D. (2014). Tracking movement toward academic language in multilingual classrooms. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 60–71. Achugar, M., Schleppegrell, M., & Oteíza, T. (2007). Engaging teachers in language analysis: A functional linguistics approach to reflective literacy. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 6(2), 8–24. Ada, A.F. (1993). My name is Maria Isabel. New York: Antheneum. Aguirre-Muñoz, Z., Chang, R., & Sanders, J. (2015). Functional grammar instruction impact on writing quality. Educational Policies and Current Practices, 1(2), 71–85. Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Writing, reading, and learning with adolescents. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Austin, T., Willett, J., Gebhard, M., & Montes, A.L. (2010). Challenges for Latino educators crossing symbolic, cultural, and linguistic boundaries: Coming to voice in teacher preparation with competing voices. Journal of Latinos and Education, 9(4), 262–283. Berg, M.A., & Huang, J. (2015). Improving in-service teachers’ effectiveness: K-12 academic literacy for the linguistically diverse. Functional Linguistics, 2(1), 5–26. Bhabha, H.K. (1994). The location of culture. New York: Routledge. 116 Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle Brisk, M.E. (2014). Engaging students in academic literacies: Genre-based pedagogy for K-5 classrooms. New York: Routledge. Brisk, M.E. (2016). Genres in writing collaborative project. In H. de Silva Joyce & S. Feez (Eds.), Exploring literacies: Theory, research and practice (pp. 287–292). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Brisk, M.E., Hodgson-Drysdale, T., & O’Connor, C. (2011). A study of a collaborative instructional project informed by SFL theory: Report writing in elementary grades. Journal of Education, 191(1), 1–12. Brisk, M.E., & Ossa Parra, M. (2018). Mainstream classrooms as engaging spaces for emergent bilinguals: SFL theory, catalyst for change. In R. Harman (Ed.), Bilingual learners and social equity (pp. 127–151). New York: Springer. Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse. London: Continuum. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. (Eds.). (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press. Coffin, C. (2009). Historical discourse: The language of time, cause and evaluation. New York: Bloomsbury. Correa, D. (2010). Developing academic literacy and voice: Challenges faced by a mature ESL student and her instructors. Profile Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 12(1), 79–94. Cullican, S. (2006). Learning to read, reading to learn: A middle years literacy intervention research project, Final Report 2003–4. Melbourne, Australia: Catholic Education Office. de Oliveira, L.C. (2016). A language-based approach to content instruction (LACI) for English language learners: Examples from two elementary teachers. International Multilingual Research Journal, 10(3), 217–231. Derewianka, B.M., & Jones, P. (2016). Teaching language in context (2nd ed.). South Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press. Dyson, A.H. (1993). Social worlds of children: Learning to write in an urban primary school. New York: Teachers College Press. Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2nd ed.). New York: Continuum. Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89(2), 335–347. Fang, Z., Sun, Y., Chiu, C.C., & Trutschel, B.K. (2014). Inservice teachers’ perception of a language-based approach to content area reading. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 37(1), 55–66. Fountas, I.C., & Pinnell, G.S. (2008). Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System 2. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Gebhard, M., Chen, I., & Britton, L. (2014). “Miss, nominalization is a nominalization”: English language learners’ use of SFL metalanguage and their literacy practices. Linguistics and Education, 26, 106–125. Gebhard, M., & Graham, H. (2018). Bats and grammar: developing critical language awareness in the context of school reform. English Teaching: Practice & Critique. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-12-2017-0183 Gebhard, M., & Graham, H. (in press). “Grammar and bats”: Environmental studies, critical SFL metalanguage, and middle schoolers. English Teaching: Practice & Critique. Gebhard, M., Harman, R., & Seger, W. (2007). Reclaiming recess in urban schools: The potential of systemic functional linguistics for ELLs and their teachers. Language Arts, 84(5), 419–430. Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle 117 Gebhard, M., Shin, D.S., & Seger, W. (2011). Blogging and emergent L2 literacy in an urban elementary school: A functional perspective. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 278–307. Gebhard, M., & Willett, J. (2008). Social to academic: University-school district partnership helps teachers broaden students’ language skills. The Journal of Staff Development, 29(1), 41–45. Gebhard, M., Willett, J., Jiménez Caicedo, J., & Piedra, A. (2011). Systemic functional linguistics, teachers’ professional development, and ELLs’ academic literacy practices. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 91–110). New York: Routledge. Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247–273. Giroux, H.A. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York: Routledge. Gutiérrez, K.D., Baquedano-López, P., Alvarez, H.H., & Chiu, M.M. (1999). Building a culture of collaboration through hybrid language practices. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 87–93. Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social semiotic perspective. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press. Harman, R. (Ed.). (2018). Bilingual learners and social equity: Critical approaches to systemic functional linguistics (Vol. 33). New York: Springer. Humphrey, S. (2017). Academic literacies in the middle years. New York: Routledge. Humphrey, S., & Macnaught, L. (2016). Functional language instruction and the writing growth of English language learners in the middle years. TESOL Quarterly, 50(4), 792–816. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. Lantolf, J.P., & Thorne, S.L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Macken-Horarik, M., Love, K., Sandiford, C., & Unsworth, L. (2018). Functional grammatics: Re-conceptualizing knowledge about language and image for school English. New York: Routledge. Martin, J.R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox. Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzáles, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(4), 132–141. Moore, J., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2014). Using a functional linguistics metalanguage to support academic language development in the English Language Arts. Linguistics and Education, 26, 92–105. Nieto, S. (Ed.) (2005). Why we teach. New York: Teachers College Press. Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2018). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (7th ed.). New York: Pearson. O’Hallaron, C., & Schleppegrell, M. (2016). “Voice” in children’s science arguments: Aligning assessment criteria with genre and discipline. Assessing Writing, 30, 63–73. O’Halloran, K.L. (2000). Classroom discourse in mathematics: A multisemiotic analysis. Linguistics and Education, 10(3), 359–388. Palincsar, A., & Schleppegrell, M.J. (2014). Focusing on language and meaning while learning with text. TESOL Quarterly, 48(3), 616–623. Rose, D. (2015). New developments in genre-based literacy pedagogy. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed., pp. 227–242). New York: Guilford. 118 Genres, Registers, and the Teaching Learning Cycle Rose, D., & Martin, J.R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Sheffield: Equinox. Schleppegrell, M. (2003). Grammar for writing: Academic language and the ELD standards. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California’s Linguistic Minorities Research Institute. Schleppegrell, M.J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schleppegrell, M.J. (2013). The role of metalanguage in supporting academic language development. Language Learning, 63(S1), 153–170. Schleppegrell, M.J. (2015). Teaching the languages of schooling for equity and quality in education. In E. Thürmann (Ed.), Proceedings of The Intergovernmental Conference on the Language Dimension in All School Subjects (pp. 35–51). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Schleppegrell, M.J., & de Oliveira, L. (2006). An integrated language and content approach for history teachers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(4), 254–268. Schleppegrell, M.J., Greer, S., & Taylor, S. (2008). Literacy in history: Language and meaning. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31(2), 174–187. Sommer, D. (2004). Bilingual aesthetics: A new sentimental education. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Spaulding, C. (1995). Motivation or empowerment: What is the difference? Language Arts, 72(7), 489–494. Spring, J. (2014). Political agendas for education: From Race to the Top to saving the planet. New York: Routledge. Velasquez, E. (2001) Grandma’s records. New York: Walker & Co. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159–180. Walqui, A., & van Lier, L. (2010). Scaffolding the academic success of adolescent English language learners: A pedagogy of promise. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. Wiggins, G.P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 5 REGISTERS Critically Analyzing Field, Tenor, and Mode Choices A little SFL and genre theory goes a long way. —Lynne Britton, elementary ESL teacher and ACCELA participant As mentioned in Chapter Four, Lynne made this comment in the context of reflecting on how she translated SFL theory into classroom practice. Lynne, like other ACCELA teachers whose work will be highlighted in this chapter, is an example of a teacher who had high expectations for herself and her students. She was also willing to experiment with systemic functional linguistics (SFL) to see how it could support the literacy development of her multilingual second graders. For example, not long after I introduced Lynne to the strategy of tracking participants to teach students how authors build ideas using repetition, synonyms, and pronouns, Lynne used this technique to guide her second graders in making sense of a short poem about butterflies (Gebhard, Chen, & Britton, 2014, p 114): 1. Teacher: 2. Students: 3. Teacher: 4. Student 1: 5. Teacher: 6. Students: 7. Teacher: Let’s look at this one. What does this title say? Butterflies Butterflies. And so butterflies is the what, Angel? The? The noun. The noun or . . .? Participant. Awesome. You guys are so smart. Right after lunch, you’re fueled up and ready. So, it’s the noun, or participant. Does it say “butterflies” again in the poem? 8. Student 2: No 9. Teacher: (agrees) It doesn’t. ( Juana raises hand) 120 Registers 10. Teacher: 11. Student 3: 12. Teacher: 13. Student 1: 14. Teacher: 15. Students: 16. Teacher: 17. Student 3: 18. Teacher: 19. All: 20. Teacher: 21. Student 1: 22. Teacher: 23. Student 1: 24. Teacher: 25. Student 1: 26. Teacher: 27. Student 3: 28. Student 4: 29. Teacher: 30. All: 31. Teacher: 32. Juana: 33. Teacher: 34. Juana: 35. Teacher: (to Student 3) What are you thinking? It’s “we.” Oh, we. We refers to the butterflies? Ok, so do we think that . . . (sits up and points, interrupting) Flowers. Oh, hold on . . . we is a . . .? Noun Noun or participant. Cuz it’s the butterflies. Great, so let’s read the whole thing. (reading aloud) We are multicolored flowers of the air. Hmmm. “We” is the noun. And is there . . . what is this over here? I know, I know! It’s talking about flowers? No, butterflies. What is butterflies? What’s referring to the butterflies? (quiet) Flowers Flowers. That’s right. And how do we know? How do we know that? You talked about that. Yup . . . Flowers um have the same . . . the butterflies have the same colors as flowers. Right, OK, so it’s making a comparison. So here in this poem how many participants do we see, if we include the title? (counting) One, two, three And is it all the same thing? It’s all butterflies, right? Yeah And how many different ways does it say butterflies? We, butterflies, and flowers Three . . . so you guys are really smart because you figured out how to track the participants even when the word isn’t the same. It would be easy if it said, “butterflies, butterflies, butterflies.” You would know that in an instant, right? As the transcript above shows, during a whole class discussion, Lynne asked students to help her track the participants, or nouns referring to butterflies, which prompted a student to notice that “butterflies have the same colors as flowers” (line 28) and another student to identify a chain of nouns that included, “we, butterflies, and flowers” to support of her peer’s observation (line 34). Collectively, this discussion guided students in discovering how figurative language worked in specific ways in this poem. This example, similar to data presented in previous chapters, demonstrates that very young children are able to use SFL tools in highly productive ways when teachers pick an SFL tool well suited to achieving their curricular goals. This Registers 121 example also shows, in Lynne’s words, how “a little SFL” can go a long way— and that SFL is not as hard to understand and use as critics have claimed. Rather, if teachers, like their students, are provided with examples, have guidance, and are given room to experiment, they are able to able to use SFL tools to develop their own understanding of how language works and scaffold their students’ abilities to engage with disciplinary texts. To illustrate how ACCELA teachers, like Lynne, have used SFL tools in these their classrooms, this chapter explores the following questions: • • How can teachers use SFL tools to develop an understanding of how language works in the texts they routinely require students to read and write? How can teachers use SFL tools to design curriculum, instruction, and assessments to support all students in developing disciplinary literacy practices? To address these questions, this chapter moves outward from the innermost circle shown in Figure 5.1 to delve deeper into the concept of register and provides examples of how ACCELA teachers have used the concept of register to design, implement, and research their multilingual students’ literacy development. While Chapter Four focused primarily on English language arts and narratives in the primary grades, this chapter focuses on a wider variety of content areas, genres, and grade levels. FIGURE 5.1 Text/context dynamics in schools (focus on genre and register) 122 Registers Field: Constructing Content, Ideas, and Experiences To review, field choices construct ideas and experiences, thereby realizing the ideational function of language. Field choices include the selection of different types of verbs or processes, different kinds of nouns or participants, and different kinds of adverbs and prepositional phrases called circumstances. These linguistic choices construct the content of a text in a particular context of situation. These terms represent a meaning-oriented perspective of grammar and can support students, regardless of their age, language proficiency, or the content area they are learning, to notice and critically examine what linguists call transitivity patterns. Transitivity patterns refer to figuring out “who did what to whom under which circumstances,” a helpful thought process when students are confronted with a particularly dense sentence structure or get a little suspicious about how something is worded (Thompson, 2014, p. 32). Transitivity patterns are fairly easy to trace in everyday texts that construct meaning using concrete words that map onto grammatical structures in a direct way. However, “who did what to whom under which circumstances” is harder to figure out when sentences become more complex and when the participants become packed with more abstract information. For example, compare the following three sentences: • • • The balloon popped with a bang. The air expanded inside the balloon and it exploded. We hypothesized that the relationship between the temperature and the volume of a gas is directly proportional. As illustrated in Table 5.1, the first sentence is made up of just one clause and tells what happened in a very direct, word-for-word way. In other words, it tells “who did what under which circumstances” in that order. When clauses are constructed in this direct way, the grammar is said to be congruent with the meaning (Christie & Derewianka, 2008, p. 151). In the second sentence, transitivity is still easy to map even though the sentence is made up of two independent clauses connected by the word and. However, transitivity in the third sentence is much harder to track, and therefore comprehend for beginning second language learners. Note that the third sentence is made up of two clauses: the first is a dependent clause that includes the conjunction that, and the second is an embedded independent clause with a long, packed, and abstract noun group in the subject position. In this example, 11 words form the subject of the embedded clause, which is a lot of words for a beginning language learner to wade through before they get to the verb “is.” The different transitivity patterns in these sentences illustrate one of the reasons why reading and writing in disciplinary ways become more challenging in the upper grades, especially in the sciences. As discussed in Chapters Three and Process Did what? Participant What? Circumstance In what manner? with a bang. Process Did what? Participant What? Circumstance Where? inside the balloon Conjunction and hypothesized Process Did what? We Participant Who? Conjunction that Participant What? the relationship between the temperature and the volume of a gas Complex sentence with a packed and abstract noun group expanded The air Two independent clauses linked by and popped The balloon Simple sentence (a single clause) that uses concrete nouns TABLE 5.1 Transitivity in Simple and More Complex Sentences Process is Participant (refers to balloon) What? it Attribute directly proportional. Process Did what? exploded. 124 Registers Four, teachers can follow the teaching and learning cycle (TLC) to guide students in unpacking dense transitivity patterns by noticing how different kinds of processes, participants, and circumstances work to make meaning in the texts they are routinely required to read and write. Process Types Processes refer to different kinds of verbs. The traditional definition of a verb is an “action.” However, from an SFL perspective, this definition is not very accurate because some verbs construct different ways of thinking about ideas and experiences, sensing the physical world, or linking ideas and experiences. Therefore, Halliday uses the term processes to capture how verbs construe not just actions or ways of doing, but also ways of saying, sensing, being/relating, and existing (see Table 5.2). As discussed in Chapters Three and Four, research demonstrates that even students in the elementary grades can use functional metalanguage, such as labels that name different types of processes, to progress from literal to more interpretive and critical understandings of the texts they encounter in schools (e.g., Moore & Schleppegrell, 2014). To support this progression, there are a number of practical ways teachers can introduce students to noticing and naming process types when they are engaged in literacy tasks. First, developmentally, research shows that as students advance in grades, they are required to shift from discussing, reading, and writing about more personal topics to critically analyzing discipline-specific texts (e.g., Christie & Derewianka, 2008). As a result, the process types students encounter in different disciplines become much more precise, technical, and abstract as they advance in grades. In teaching students to read closely and discuss what they read critically, teachers can guide students in highlighting, literally, the processes or verbs they encounter in a passage; discuss what these words mean and why authors might have selected certain verbs over others; and encourage students to use more precise verbs when discussing or writing about the same topic. Teachers can also draw students’ attention to how the choice of a specific saying process combines with aspects of the language’s tenor system to construct how someone feels about what they said (e.g., whimpered, screamed, said, stated, reported, argued). Analyzing saying processes is a highly practical way of exploring the unstated feelings, attitudes, or beliefs of characters in fictional texts (e.g., Moore & Schleppegrell, 2014). This approach can also be used to identify the stance or unstated bias of authors of non-fictional texts (e.g., Carpenter, Achugar, Walter, & Earhart, 2015). When guiding students in unpacking the meaning of texts in this way, it is important to note that classifying different types of processes can be very straightforward or it can get very slippery, especially when meanings are nuanced. In working with ACCELA teachers using an expanded version of the TLC, I stress Construct experiences through actions Doing (also called action or material verbs) Saying (also called verbal verbs) Construct the mental state or internal world of humans or non-humans who are given humanlike qualities Describe, classify, or otherwise link two pieces of information Make claims that some-thing or someone exists or existed Sensing (also called mental verbs) • Thinking verbs • Feeling verbs • Wanting verbs • Perceiving verbs Being (also called relating or having verbs) Existential Construct ideas and experiences as spoken or reported Function Process Type There is a house There are several types of chemical compounds Once upon a time, there was a mouse To make, create, build, craft, design, construct, produce, fabricate, assemble, manufacture, engineer In arguments and explanations: to imply, suggest, say, state, report, claim, maintain, attest, argue, proclaim, conclude In fiction and non-fiction literary texts: to whisper, stammer, yelp, plead, beg, shout, scream, roar To know, remember, recollect, understand, recognize, comprehend, learn To wish, wonder, hope, like, love, dislike, loathe, hate, detest To sense, see, touch, feel, hear, taste, smell, observe, notice Is, are, was, were Has, have, had, Refers, is called, seems Examples Teachers can type a short text or select a key passage for analysis focusing on one aspect of the text such as process types. This analysis should focus on noticing patterns in texts to support the content goals of an instructional unit. Students should not just label certain linguistic features for the sake of labeling and testing. • Over time, with practice and support, students can use SFL to analyze texts more independently as they develop critical reading and more expert writing practices. Students can be instructed to highlight processes in texts and categorize them by type as a way of moving from literal, to inferential, and then to critical interpretations of what they read. • • Students are required to develop more varied, precise, and abstract ways of constructing ideas and experiences as they shift from reading and writing personal narratives in the primary grades to other kinds of informational texts in secondary school (e.g., types of reports, explanations, arguments; see Chapter Four) • Implications for Practice TABLE 5.2 Processes or Verb Types (Derewianka, 2011; Droga & Humphrey, 2003; Schleppegrell, 2004) 126 Registers that the goal of analyzing process types is to support readers in noticing patterns and naming how meaning is being constructed in a specific text. The goal is not to label verbs for the sake of labeling or to test students’ accuracy in using SFL’s technical terms. I also stress that it is neither necessary, nor practical, to analyze an entire text in such close detail, especially in the upper grades when texts become longer and more complex. Rather, using the expanded TLC introduced in Chapter Four, I encourage teachers to select a key passage that is essential to their instructional goals. During Stages Four and Five of the expanded TLC—Modeling Reading and Modeling Writing—teachers can either photocopy a selected passage or type it on a worksheet. They can then project it on an overhead or show it on a screen so they can work alongside students in using different colored highlighters to notice and name the processes, or other aspects of the text (e.g., genre stages, field, tenor, and mode choices) they want students to attend to in learning content knowledge and developing disciplinary literacy practices. This approach can help guide students in learning to read and write in more expert ways (see praxis section of this chapter for more detail). SFL in Action: Analyzing Processes in The Giving Tree In introducing pre- and in-service teachers to the power of exploring field choices in texts, I demonstrate how teachers can use SFL tools to support students of any age in reading, analyzing, and discussing The Giving Tree by Shel Silverstein. Silverstein’s (1964) provocative picture book tells the story of a tree who loves a boy and their relationship as the boy grows older. The narrative unfolds through a set of genre stages that include a series of mini complications and their resolutions, which I have teachers identify using different colored highlighters on a one-page typed version of the story. Teachers note that the first of these complication/resolution sequences involves the boy wanting money and the tree giving him her apples to sell. Next, the boy wants a house, so the tree tells the boy to chop down her branches to build one. As time passes, the boy is again unhappy and wants to sail away. The tree tells him to cut down her trunk to make a boat, which the boy does. In the end, the boy returns, now an old man, who just wants a quiet place to sit. The tree, who is now a stump, offers herself as a place where the boy can rest. The narrative’s final resolution is that the old man sits down and stays with the tree, and the tree is happy. After reading this story aloud as a class, just as I would with elementary and secondary students, I ask members of the class to highlight all the processes or verbs that go with the tree and those that go with the boy to see if they notice any patterns. Without any background in SFL, they determine that the boy’s character is constructed using mostly doing verbs (e.g., cut, take, chop, carry, sail ) with the exception of the repetition of the sensing verb want. The tree’s character, on the other hand, is constructed using mostly sensing verbs that include love, verbal Registers 127 verbs such as whispered and sighed, and the being verb was in the sentence “the tree was happy” (or sad or lonely in other parts of the narrative). Based on this quick analysis of field choices, our discussion of this story’s meaning typically centers on conceptions of unconditional love, motherhood, gender dynamics, and the relationship between humans and the environment. In addition, I encourage teachers, as I would students, to give textual evidence to support their interpretations to model how they can use a similar practice of unpacking meaning and discussing interpretations of texts with their students. Participant Types Teachers and students alike also benefit from developing a greater awareness of the different types of participants or nouns and noun groups they encounter in different kinds of texts. The traditional definition of a noun is “a person, place, or thing.” However, in Halliday’s meaning-focused grammar, what’s more important is that people, places, and things participate in social processes. Therefore, the term participants is meant to capture how people, places, and things bring about the occurrence of different processes (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2006). For example, in shifting from literal, to more inferential, and then critical interpretations of historical texts or texts written about politically charged topics, students must develop more precise ways of answering the seemingly simple question “who did what to whom under which circumstances.” Students need to develop this ability because disciplinary texts are often written in ways that unintentionally and sometimes very intentionally obscure responsibility, euphemize highly negative events, and exaggerate the impact of positive ones ( Janks, 2010; Schleppegrell, 2004; Young & Fitzgerald, 2006). In addition, historical texts are often written from the perspective of those in power and therefore construct “reality” from a specific perspective that is not always shared by others. For example, were women given the right to vote in 1920 or did they fight for it? During the Vietnam war, were mistakes made or did someone in particular actually make them? And in the summer of 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia, were White supremacists exercising their First Amendment rights or committing hate crimes? Using an understanding of the interaction between process and participant types, as shown in Table 5.3, students can engage in literal and interpretive discussions of the texts they read by exploring how doing verbs (also sometimes called action or material verbs) construct “doers,” “agents,” and those who are “done to.” They can also learn how to read between the lines when doers or agents are grammatically hidden or constructed in a more positive or negative light depending on the author’s stance. Likewise, students can be guided in noticing and discussing how sensing verbs and saying verbs construct particular kinds of actors in literary, historical, and political texts. For example, in analyzing literary texts, students note that male characters, such as the boy in Silverstein’s picture book, are constructed through a preponderance of doing or action verbs 128 Registers that construct them as agents of their own destinies for good or ill. In contrast, women’s experiences, like the tree, are often constructed through a greater number of sensing processes, which construe women as people whose experiences are shaped less by their own actions and more by their emotions and feelings and the actions of others (e.g., Droga & Humphrey, 2003, p. 35). TABLE 5.3 Participant or Noun Group Types (Derewianka, 2011; Droga & Humphrey, 2003; Schleppegrell, 2004) Participant Type Examples Implications for Practice Doers (also called agents) Chemicals that leaked into waterways destroyed the wetland habitats. My mother’s favorite vase was shattered to pieces on the floor. The solution was heated to 100 degrees Celsius. Ten teachers were randomly selected for participation in a study of their beliefs about grammar. • Teachers can support students in noticing how action verbs construct agency and make “who did what to whom” very transparent. • Teachers can also support students in noticing when the doer is grammatically buried or even left out to avoid blame or responsibility (e.g., use of passive versus active voice) or to make a text appear more objective or scientific (e.g., scientific observations). • Teachers can support students in noticing how characters in literature or authors of informational texts use sensing verbs. This kind of analysis supports students in moving from literal to more inferential understandings of texts and to use more precise verbs in producing texts of their own. • Teachers can support students in noticing how characters in literature or authors of informational texts use saying verbs. This kind of analysis supports students in moving from literal to more inferential understandings of texts and to use more precise and more varied verbs in producing texts of their own. Done to Sensors Sayers He felt lonely, longed to be home again with his parents, and hoped that no harm would come to him as he marched North to Gettysburg. Copernicus hypothesized that the sun is at rest near the center of the universe, and that the Earth revolves annually around the sun. Harry’s first cousin, Dudley, is always whining, sniveling, and demanding. Nixon denied any knowledge of the Watergate break-in. The number of deaths on the island of Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria speak loudly to the issue of environmental injustice. Registers 129 Participant Type Examples Implications for Practice Generalized participants My abuela Æ migrants from Puerto Rico The air in the balloon Æ gasses This triangle Æ equilateral triangles Packed participants (also called long nominal groups) Trapped greenhouse gases Adjacent angles measuring 60 degrees The tall, imposing skyscrapers of New York City • Teachers can support students in recognizing and using generalizable nouns or participants as they move from reading, writing, and talking about the personal and particular to more abstract ways of constructing ideas and experiences. • Teachers can guide students to highlight long nominal groups to support their reading comprehension. • Teachers can also show students how to pack more meaning into nominal groups as a way of effectively “adding details” in producing disciplinary texts. An additional type of participant is referred to as a generalizable participant. Students encounter these kinds of nouns/noun groups as they shift from telling personal narratives and reading in the primary grades, to reading, writing, and discussing discipline-specific informational texts in the upper grades. SFL scholars have provided compelling evidence that students need to be able to recognize and use generalizable participants in moving from the personal and particular to the more general and abstract (e.g., Christie & Derewianka, 2008). For example, multilingual elementary students in Lynne Britton’s class learned to use generalizable participants after reading and writing about their families’ migration experiences (Gebhard, Chen, & Britton, 2014). Specifically, as they moved away from sharing specific family stories to writing more generalized historical explanations, they were guided in shifting from talking about abuelo and abuela in class discussions to using generalizable participants such Puerto Rican migrants in their writing. In addition, they discussed how migrant as opposed to immigrant captures the fact that Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens. Moreover, disciplinary texts tend to pack participants with a lot of information to create longer nominal groups or what students in Lynne’s class called “chunky participants” (Gebhard, Chen, & Britton, 2014, p. 112). For example, when Lynne’s students read and wrote about global warming, they highlighted participants such as dangerous trapped greenhouse gases. This practice supported their reading comprehension and their ability to pack disciplinary meanings into chunky participants in their own writing. 130 Registers Circumstance Types A third component of the field system is how language packs details about a process into a single clause or sentence through the use of circumstances. As illustrated in Table 5.4, students can improve both their reading and writing abilities by attending closely to how writers, including themselves, construct time, place, manner, and cause within a sentence when writing a text for a particular purpose and audience. TABLE 5.4 Circumstances Types (Derewianka, 2011; Droga & Humphrey, 2003; Schleppe- grell, 2004) Circumstance Type Function Example Implications for Practice Time Construct a point in time, the duration of an event, and/ or the frequency of an event • Place Construct specific location, direction to a place, and/ or the distance to a place Manner Construct how, by what means, and/ or to what extent something happens The stock market crashed on October 29, 1929, causing the Great Depression, which lasted almost a decade. Since then, the US economy has experienced other crashes, including in 2008. She tucked the tattered notebook in her flowered backpack, under the few belongings she packed as she walked several miles to the train station on the desolate stretch of Route 47. 36 grams of table salt (NaCl) were poured in 100 mL of water and stirred with a glass rod until it dissolved completely. As a result of the Brown versus Board of Education ruling, racial segregation in public schools was declared unconstitutional in 1954. Causal Construct the cause, purpose, and/or reasons behind an event • Teachers can support students’ active reading practices by having them highlight how authors pack details into clauses to construct particular kinds of meanings associated with different disciplines (time markers in historical texts; cause and effect in scientific texts; place in literary texts; and manner in a variety of disciplines). Teachers can support students in using circumstances more expertly in their own writing based on an analysis of expert texts in their discipline. Registers 131 Tenor: Constructing Voice, Social Roles, and Power Dynamics As discussed in previous chapters, the interpersonal function of language constructs social identities, relationships, power dynamics, attitudes, and emotions. This function is realized through the language’s tenor system, which includes grammatical mood, modality, and appraisal resources. Grammatical Mood As illustrated in Table 5.5, language users consciously and subconsciously develop different ways of establishing relationships, institutional identities, and social roles through the way they offer information and make statements using the declarative mood, ask questions using the interrogative mood, or give commands using the imperative mood. For example, developmentally, very young children do not have a full command of the language’s mood system. Therefore, they often use single TABLE 5.5 The Grammatical Mood System (Derewianka, 2011; Derewianka & Jones, 2016; Droga & Humphrey, 2003; Schleppegrell, 2004) Grammatical Mood Function Example Implications for Practice Statements: the declarative mood To give information, to construct a fact (even when it might be an opinion) • Questions: the interrogative mood To ask for information or for someone to do something; to make an offer To command or to express something forcefully Today we are going to develop a better understanding of what a linear function is using equations, graphs, and written explanations. Would anyone like to share your group’s responses to the problem? Commands: the imperative mood Look at each of the graphs in the textbook. Next, decide if it represents a linear function. Then explain your reasons. Work in pairs and then report back. You have five minutes, so get started! Students can analyze the use of question, statements of “fact,” and commands to explore roles and power dynamics in literary texts, films, and political discourse (e.g., who talks, who is silent, who uses statements to construct authoritative “facts,” who asks questions and listens to the responses, who gives commands, and are they followed or not?) 132 Registers words and intonation to make statements or requests such as Cookie!, meaning I want a cookie, Here’s a cookie, Can I have a cookie?, or Give me a cookie! As they cognitively and socially mature, they develop the grammatical resources needed to interact with others using questions, statements, and commands in more selective and purposeful ways. For example, they learn to how to offer information, make suggestions, ask for clarification, make requests, and demand action (Halliday, 1993). In classroom discourse, students are socialized into and can be explicitly taught how to negotiate new social dynamics and identities in school by consciously attending to grammatical mood, as well as other aspects of tenor related to constructing productive and respectful classroom interactions and relationships (see Chapter Three). For example, Derewianka (2011, p. 110) describes how patterns of interactions in classrooms determine who is the “expert,” the “mentor,” the “facilitator,” or the “disciplinarian,” as well as who is the “novice,” the “learner,” the “knower,” or the “subverter.” She adds that how these roles are negotiated through statements, questions, and commands determines whether the relationships between teachers and students, and students and other students are “supportive, cool or stressful” (p. 110). Table 5.6 illustrates how grammatical mood can influence classroom dynamics. This example comes from a mixed age/ability high school algebra class and builds on the examples of classroom discourse presented in Chapter Three. It demonstrates how mood and field resources work together in classroom talk as the teacher, “Mr. Moody,” tries to get his reluctant students to discuss linear functions. This example illustrates how the mood system, in conjunction with field choices, is used to negotiate interactions and construct social roles and disciplinary knowledge. In regard to implications for practice, as discussed in the praxis section of Chapter Three, pre- and in-service teachers can record and transcribe classroom interactions as a way of reflecting on classroom dynamics and learning opportunities. For example, they can analyze how their use of statements, questions, and commands construct institutional roles and identities in ways that can be highly consequential for students’ learning and the kind of relationships enacted between themselves and their students. In addition, Derewianka (2011) suggests students can be explicitly taught how to participate more productively in pedagogical conversations by learning how to use statements, question, and commands when working in groups and participating in whole-class discussions (e.g., I agree, I disagree, I would like to add, Our group said the same thing, Our group had a different answer, What’s your opinion?, What do you want to add?, Do you have a different answer?, Say more about that). Last, in regard to supporting students’ critical literacies, teachers can use these same tools to analyze dialogue in novels, films, and political debates as a way of exploring identities, roles, and power dynamics in these types of texts. TABLE 5.6 Use of Field and Tenor Resources in a High School Math Class Transcript Analysis of field and tenor choices 1. Mr. Moody: Today we are going to develop a better understand of what a linear function is using equations, graphs, and written explanations. We will do this in groups and then discuss it. For homework you have a worksheet that you’ll complete on your own. 2. Mr. Moody: So, using the definition we talked about yesterday and that I put on the top of your handout, look at each of the six graphs. Next, decide if it represents a linear function or not. Then explain your reasons using the definition. Talk it out in your groups and then report back. You have about five minutes, so let’s get started! (students work in groups using both Spanish and English, the teacher moves from group to group, some students have their heads down on their desks) • The teacher gives directions by making statements of fact using the declarative mood. In part, these statements establish his institutional role as the teacher. They also establish the purpose of instruction and what the homework will be (i.e., aspects of the field of algebra through the choice of specific processes, participants, and circumstances). • The teacher gives directions using a series of commands (e.g., look, decide, explain, work, report, get started) in ways that further construct his institutional role as the person who controls the topic of conversation (linear functions), who talks, and when (e.g., whole class, small groups, individually). • The teacher moves from group to group to get students on task and answer questions. He spends a little more time with groups that need more help. He does not interrupt the flow of conversation in groups that seem to be on track. • The teacher uses multimodal and multilingual resources to decrease the social distance that often exists between teachers and students in high schools. For example, he does not stand at the front of the room and lecture, but moves from group to group, sometimes kneeling so he is on eye level with students. He switches between a math register and everyday registers in English and Spanish. He points to the graphs and traces their shape with his figure to further explain what a function is. • Students seem to react positively to Mr. Moody’s interactions with them. Most get to work while also joking around. (Continued) 134 Registers TABLE 5.6 (Continued) Transcript Analysis of field and tenor choices 3. Mr. Moody: Okay, let’s get back together and see what you came up with. Would anyone like to share? (4 seconds of silence) • 4. Mr. Moody: No takers? (3 seconds of silence) I noticed a lot of you had some good ideas. Should we do the first one together to get started? • 5. Mr. Moody: Okay Mayjay, let’s do the first one together because I have the feeling your group is on the right track. • • We said this first one is linear because it’s like, like the line is straight, so like there isn’t a curve. • 7. Mr. Moody: Yeah, right. That makes sense. It is a linear function because the equation produces a straight line, you can graph a straight line. Does the next group want to add to that? 6. Mayjay: The teacher asks an open-ended question to share the floor with students, but they resist participating despite most having made progress in completing the task. He allows “wait time” to see if someone will take the floor. Students continue to resist taking the floor. To model and scaffold classroom participation structures that co-construct knowledge and language, he provides a declarative statement that constructs students as having disciplinary understanding and as being capable students. He then uses a question to encourage students to respond, while also offering to make the task less challenging by doing the first one with them. The teacher nominates a student who can contribute to the construction of the target concept. He uses a command to prompt participation and a statement of encouragement to confer academic ability to this student’s group. Student uses the declarative mood to construct mathematical knowledge and her role as a capable math student. The teacher evaluates the student’s response and elaborates on it using a series of declarative statements and mathematical field choices. He then asks a question to prompt another group to contribute to the discussion to further construct the students’ understanding of a linear function using Mayjay’s language. Modality: Constructing Degrees of Possibility and Certainty In the context of Chapter Three, I introduced the concept of modal verbs. These verbs function to construct different degrees of possibility and/or certainty. They include may, might, can, could, shall, ought to, need to, has to, will, and must (see Table 5.7). Modal Nouns Modal Adverbs Modal Verbs Modal Type Can, could, should The senator should vote in favor of that bill. Probably, likely, usually The bill will probably pass the senate. Probability, likelihood There is a strong likelihood the bill will pass the senate. Maybe the bill will pass the senate. Possibility, chance There is a possibility the bill will pass the senate. Medium May, might The senator might vote in favor of that bill. Maybe, perhaps, possibly Low Examples at Different Degrees of Modality Will, must, have to The senator will vote in favor of that bill. Always, never, definitely, absolutely The bill will definitely pass the senate. Certainty, necessity It is a certainty that the bill will pass the senate. High TABLE 5.7 The Modality System (Derewianka, 2011; Droga & Humphrey, 2003; Schleppegrell, 2004) • Teachers can support students in noticing and critically discussing how modality is used in texts. • Students can draw on their discussion to use modality in their speaking and writing in more nuanced ways (e.g., making space for other perspectives, not overstating a claim, constructing a reasoned stance, not overcommitting to a perspective, hedging). Implications for Practice 136 Registers We use these modal verbs, as well as modal adverbs (e.g., absolutely, probably, maybe) and modal nouns (e.g., certainty, probability, possibility), to take up harder or softer positions while making statements, asking questions, and giving commands (Halliday, 1993). This aspect of tenor is important because as children advance in grades and develop content knowledge in different disciplines, they need to expand and attend more consciously to how language users, including themselves, make choices regarding modality. For example, children in the elementary grades typically read and write stories with their friends and teacher and share these stories with their families. However, as they advance in grades, they are required to read, write, and critique informational texts. These texts use modality in more specific and nuanced ways to explain and persuade. Therefore, students need to be able to notice how modality is used in historical and scientific texts so they can determine if information is being presented in a balanced and objective way or not (e.g., Derewianka & Jones, 2016; Schleppegrell, 2004). Moreover, in their own classroom talk and writing, students need to make space for other perspectives in interacting with people who may not share their views and they need to be careful not to present their opinions as taken-forgranted facts. Teachers can support students in expanding their knowledge of modality by having them highlight and discuss authors’ use of modal verbs, modal adverbs, and modal nouns and then support students in making more intentional modal choices of their own. Appraisal: Expressing Feelings, Evaluating Things, and Judging People As Derewianka and Jones (2016) make clear, language users “don’t interact by simply exchanging questions, statements, commands, and offers . . . we express attitudes, engage the listener or reader, and adjust the strength of our feelings and opinions” (p. 25). Together these aspects of the interpersonal function form the appraisal system. As Martin and White (2005) describe, this system is used to express human emotions related to matters of the heart (e.g., love, hate) and feelings of well-being or insecurity (e.g., happy, afraid). It is also used to evaluate the worth, value, or quality of something (e.g., an expertly crafted film) and to judge people’s actions and moral character (e.g., brave, weak, cowardly). While appraisal resources include the use of adjectives, it is important to note that emotions, evaluations, and judgment can also be communicated indirectly through how language users choose specific processes, participants, and circumstances as illustrated in Table 5.8. In regard to pedagogical practices, students can be taught to notice how language, as well as images and sounds, work to communicate attitudes in a host of different genres across different disciplines (e.g., historical recounts, personal narratives, scientific arguments, mathematical explanations). For example, Example The film documented the indescribable pain of parents whose children lost their lives at Columbine, Sandy Hook, and then Parkland High School. Focus: The feeling and emotions of parents Political leaders have taken note of the well-organized student movement against gun violence in the wake of a school shooting in Parkland, Florida. Focus: Evaluation of a thing, a student movement Many, regardless of where they stand on the Second Amendment, accuse state and federal lawmakers of being weak when it comes to addressing the issue of gun violence in the United States. Focus: A judgment of the behavior and moral character of politicians Aspect of Appraisal Language used to express human emotions related to matters of the heart, degrees of satisfaction, and a sense of security Language used to evaluate the quality of things; ways of reacting to an event; ways of appraising a work of art or natural phenomenon Language used to judge people’s behavior; ways of critiquing someone’s moral character • Students can be taught to use highlighters to identify language that constructs human emotions, evaluations of things, and judgments of people. • Students can make lists of words and phrases to support them in shifting form literal to more inferential and critical interpretations of texts. • Students can take note of how different disciplines use appraisal resources in different ways. For example, they can notice how writers of scientific discourse try to be objective, descriptive, and analytic as opposed to emotional. Therefore, students can be taught to use appraisal resources strategically in producing scientific texts. • Literary texts, on the other hand, are artfully crafted to invoke emotions, evaluations, and judgments. Therefore, students can be taught to use appraisal resources in specific ways when they are producing poems, narratives, literary descriptions, responses to literature, and critical reviews. News reports Advertisements (through images, language, and music) Poetry Editorials Arguments Reviews of performances, books, works of art and music Arguments Implications for Practice Sample Genres TABLE 5.8 Appraisal Systems (Derewianka & Jones, 2016; Droga & Humphrey, 2003; Martin & White, 2005) 138 Registers students can be guided in using highlighters to identify language that constructs human emotions, evaluations of things, and judgments of people. Students can make lists of these words and phrases to explore the literal meanings of words and then shift to more inferential and critical readings. Similar to how students can be taught to identify and analyze how different kinds of processes, participants, and circumstances make meaning in texts, they can also be shown how to take note of how expert writers use appraisal resources in patterned ways. For example, they can notice how writers of scientific discourse tend to aim for a tone of objectivity by making declarative statements of fact with judicious use of appraisal resources to evaluate and judge the merits of something in ways that are very different from how a literary text uses appraisal resources to construct emotions and judgments. SFL in Action: Fifth Graders’ Tenor Choices in Writing Persuasive Letters An example of how one ACCELA teacher guided her multilingual students in exploring mood, modality, and appraisal resources is found in a case study conducted by Wendy Seger (Gebhard, Harman, & Seger, 2007). As mentioned in Chapter Four, Wendy was enrolled in an SFL course as part of earning a master’s degree in education and a license to teacher ESL. At the time, she was teaching fifth grade at “Fuentes Elementary School.” This school served 700 students, all of whom were eligible for a free or reduced lunch. Nearly half of these students reported speaking Spanish at home and nearly all were failing the state mandated exams in reading, English language arts, and mathematics. The administration’s response to students’ low scores was to take away their afternoon recess to make more time in their daily schedule for test preparation activities. To make matters worse, the school’s gym had been declared off-limits because of a fire. This meant that in addition to not having recess, gym class consisted of students jogging up and down one of the school’s staircases or playing improvised games in the hallway. Wendy firmly believed that students’ attention, and therefore learning and test scores, would be improved if they were able to get some much-needed exercise. Given these circumstances, Wendy wanted to apply an SFL approach to teaching English language arts to accomplish two related goals: first, she wanted to support students in writing persuasive letters to the administration as a way of possibly getting their recess reinstated; and second, she wanted to try her hand at using some of the SFL tools she had been introduced to through her participation in the ACCELA Alliance. To this end, Wendy designed a curricular unit that supported students in reading scientific explanations about the benefits of recess and writing formal, persuasive letters to their principal to get their recess back. To accomplish these goals, Wendy following the expanded TLC presented in Chapter Four. Specifically, Wendy drew on students’ background knowledge of the Registers 139 problem, guided them in reading excerpts from research articles on the benefits of recess, modeled the genre and register features of a formal persuasive letter, and supported students in producing individually authored letters to the principal. To reflect on students’ learning at the end of the unit, Wendy collected and analyzed writing samples. Her case study focused on one student named “Julia.” Julia was a highly motivated 11-year-old who had received instruction mostly in Spanish in grades K-3. According to school records, assessments given in Spanish determined she was a fluent, grade-level reader in her first language, but still struggled with reading and writing grade-level texts in English. Nonetheless, after the passage of an anti-bilingual education initiative in Massachusetts, Julia was “mainstreamed” in fourth grade and received no additional language support from bilingual or ESL specialists. Samples of three texts Julia produced during this unit focusing on recess are shown in Figure 5.2.1 An analysis of these texts shows a clear shift in Julia’s use of tenor resources from the beginning to the end of the unit. For example, in Text 1, Julia uses the imperative mood to construct an authoritative voice. She does not use any commands such as “Vote for Recess!” or “Boycott Fuentes!” However, her drawing of students marching and holding protest signs, as well as her use of many exclamation marks, suggest that she is commanding rather than asking the administration to act. In contrast, Text 2, which is Julia’s notes from the class’s collective reading of excerpts from a published research article, constructs a set of authoritative statements using declarative statements. And last, Julia’s final letter (Text 3) constructs a much more mature and respectful tone as compared to her initial drawing, but still a strong voice through the use of commands such as “please consider giving us a break” and her closing line, “Please think about it.” A review of these texts also shows a clear shift in Julia’s use of modality. For example, her first text uses modal verbs in the negative, written in capital letters (e.g., “that is not fair that students in Fuentes CAN NOT HAVE RECESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!”). In addition, her use of the verb need functions much like the modal verb must. Interestingly, in her final letter, Julia’s still uses modality to construct a high degree of certainty, but she also makes room for other perspectives. In addition, she uses the modal will to make a promise to the administration. For example, she writes, “We know you will be concerned about time. We will work until 11:35. Then give up five minutes of our lunch. We will finish our work” (underlining added here to illustrate Julia’s use of modality). Last, in regard to appraisal, there is also a clear shift from Text 1 to Text 3. For example, in Text 1, Julia conveys emotions with angry faces, claims of being “tired,” and claims that the situation is “not fair.” In contrast, her research notes (Text 2) use a different set of appraisal resources—ones that do not express human emotion as much as evaluate things. For example, she notes a “clear and positive link,” “moderately vigorous playground activity,” and “widely held belief.” She also judges people’s behavior as “more satisfied, alert, and attentive.” And last, FIGURE 5.2 Julia’s use of tenor resources in three texts arguing for recess to be reinstated (Gebhard, Harman, & Seger, 2007, pp. 423, 427) Registers 141 her final draft conveys the human emotions of “getting bored” and “not having fun” in terms that one would expect from an 11-year-old, but she couples these attitudes with evaluations of “learning better” and getting “straight to work” in making concessions to the administration. After collecting the students’ final letters, Wendy made an appointment with the principal. Her students had worked hard, but Wendy wasn’t sure the administration would grant their request. However, the principal was impressed with their letters. He noted that students stated their points clearly through their use of carefully developed arguments and counter-arguments and he consented to their request. In a response letter to the class, he stated that students could have a ten-minute recess for the remainder of the year if they were prepared to find these minutes during other parts of the day (e.g., transitions between activities, lunch). The following Monday morning, he delivered the letter to the students and complimented them on how articulate they were. When he left, Wendy described the atmosphere in the room as “electric,” as the students realized that their efforts had won them back their recess (Gebhard, Harman, & Seger, 2007, p. 427). Mode: Managing the Flow of Information Most of us have had the experience of trying to produce an extended text and not knowing how to smoothly add information to a given topic or transition to a new topic. In addition, anyone who has spent time reading student work knows that novice writers often jump from topic to topic without developing their ideas in a coherent and cohesive way. In SFL terms, this is a mode problem. As described in Chapter Three and illustrated in Figure 5.1, mode choices are how we realize the textual function of language. In explaining this function, Derewianka and Jones (2016) write: it is through the textual resources of language that we are able to organize our ideas, attitudes, and so on into texts that coherently hang together and relate to the context. The choices we make will depend on the mode (oral, written, multimodal) and the medium (print, digital, sound, etc.). (p. 30) SFL scholars have identified several ways that language and other multimodal systems perform these textual functions in systematic ways. These include: ways of weaving together given and new information, the use of nominalization, the use of carefully selected cohesive devices, and ways of tracking participants across a longer stretch of discourse. These four aspects of mode can be used to scaffold students’ reading comprehension (e.g., Gibbons, 2003). They can also be used to help students reflect, revise, and evaluate their own writing (e.g., Gebhard, Chen, & Britton, 2014). 142 Registers Weaving Given and New Information: Theme and Rheme Patterns One of the problems novice writers face is being able to shift from one topic to the next by weaving given and new information together cohesively and coherently. In SFL terms, this is referred to as constructing cohesive theme/rheme patterns. Theme is the first part of a clause. Also referred to as given information, the theme signals the focus of the clause and the author’s point of departure. The rheme is anything that comes after the theme to add new information about the topic. Table 5.9 shows five types of theme/rheme patterns that support the cohesive and logical progression of ideas in extended stretches of discourse in different disciplines. For example, informational paragraphs are typically organized around one main topic or theme, such as a paragraph about isosceles triangles that defines what they are and then adds details about specific characteristics of these triangles. Such a paragraph might stay on topic through theme repetition, as in the example text about isosceles triangles shown in Table 5.9. In this example, each sentence begins with the same theme, but not the same words. The author uses the pronoun it as a way of staying on topic and not repeating the long noun group “a right isosceles triangle” over and over again. A second common theme/rheme pattern is referred to as the zig-zag pattern (Eggins, 2004, p. 324), where the rheme of one sentence becomes the theme of the next. As illustrated in an example from U.S. history in Table 5.9, the rheme or new information in the first sentence is the American Revolution of 1776. This rheme, “revolution,” becomes the theme or given information in the next sentence, which then goes on to introduce the new idea of taxes. In a zig-zag fashion, “taxes” becomes the theme or given information in the next sentence, which then provides new information about taxes on tea. “Tea” then becomes the theme or given information in the next sentence and the rheme or new information is the “Boston Tea Party.” This zig-zag pattern is commonly found in informational texts. Oftentimes, authors of disciplinary texts use nominalization in conjunction with the zig-zag pattern. Nominalization most often involves converting a verb to a noun, such as changing revolt into revolution. Nominalizations are an important characteristic of disciplinary language for two reasons: first, they allow an author to create zig-zag patterns to build the content of their text; and second, they turn verbs or processes into more abstract nouns that, once realized as abstract ideas, can be elaborated on and packed with more information. For example: • • • Revolt Æ Revolution The American Revolution . . . The American Revolution, which began on April 19, 1775 with the battles of Concord and Lexington . . . These taxes included the tax on tea, which resulted in the famous Boston Tea Party. This revolution started because the King of England was taxing the Americans too much. A right isosceles triangle has one angle that measures 90 degrees and two angles that measure 45 degrees each. It has two legs of equal lengths because of their corresponding angles. It has an area that can be determined by the same formula for all triangles. Boston is where the American Revolution of 1776 began. Theme repetition (including same word, synonyms, pronouns) Zig-zag (rheme in one clause becomes theme in the next) Example Pattern Schleppegrell, 2004) • Teachers can guide students in using different colored highlighters to notice, list, categorize and critically discuss how authors of published texts use themes in different ways depending of the genre they are producing (e.g., a narrative, historical recount, mathematical description, scientific explanation). The sentence’s starting point or theme is a right isosceles triangle shown in bold. The rheme, which is underlined, adds new information about this theme. Each sentence begins with the same theme using the pronoun it, which is repeated as a way of staying on topic without having to repeat the long noun group a right isosceles triangle. The first sentence ends by introducing the American revolution. This rheme becomes the theme of the next sentence. In a zig-zag fashion, the rheme of the second sentence becomes the theme of the third, and so on. This pattern creates cohesion between given and new information as an author is building the field across an extended text. (Continued) • These activities support active reading, reading comprehension, genre knowledge development, and critical discussions of how authors artfully weave together information and attitudes in literary and informational texts. Implications for Practice Function TABLE 5.9 Ways of Building Ideas through Theme/Rheme Patterns (Coffin, 2009; Derewianka, 2011; Droga & Humphrey, 2003; Eggins, 2004; On January 2, 1961, John F. Kennedy was inaugurated as the 35th President of the United States. On November 22, 1963, he was assassinated. In the United States, people of a certain age can recall vividly where they were when Kennedy was shot. With fear and frustration, many Puerto Ricans continue to live without power and running water in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria. Because of the narrowing of the arteries, there is increased blood pressure. As a result, patients with high blood pressure have a greater chance of having a heart attack or a stroke. Time and place themes (ideational themes) Connecting themes (textual themes) Attitudinal themes (interpersonal themes) Example Pattern TABLE 5.9 (Continued) • Students can use these same methods of highlighting, listing, categorizing, and discussing theme patterns to reflect on and revise the texts they and their peers produce in order to enhance their capacity to create well-crafted, coherent, and cohesive texts. The sentences’ starting point draws attention to when or where something happened to accent time and place. The sentence’s starting point focuses on cause and effect. Other kinds of connecting themes signal different kinds of relationships between clauses, sentences, and paragraphs. For example, adding information (in addition, furthermore, also); sequencing (first, second, third, last); or contrasting information (however, in contrast, on the other hand). The sentence’s starting point focuses on the speaker/writer’s attitudes to draw attention to feelings, evaluations, and judgments. Implications for Practice Function Registers 145 A third type of theme marks time. These ideational themes use the circumstance of time to organize a series of events according to when they happened and are very common in historical texts (Coffin, 2009). In the example shown in Table 5.9, the focus is on when John F. Kennedy was born and when he was assassinated. It is worth noting that other ideational themes use different types of circumstances to focus on the place where something happens. A fourth kind of theme accents the attitude of the speaker or writer. These interpersonal themes begin sentences with expressions that focus on the speaker/ writer’s feelings, evaluations, and judgments. In the example given in Table 5.9, the author’s theme choice accents the feelings of “fear and frustration” experienced by Puerto Ricans in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria in 2017. Last, connecting or textual themes are used to signal specific relationships between clauses, sentences, and paragraphs. As discussed in previous chapters, textual themes in oral discourse might include and, so, but, like, and cuz. However, in making sense of disciplinary meanings, writers need to construct more specific connections between ideas across extended texts using textual themes such as as a result, in addition, however, therefore, in contrast, first, last, in sum. Teachers can support students’ reading comprehension by helping them notice and name these sorts of cohesive devices. SFL in Action: Tracking Themes in Scientific Texts As mentioned in the opening of this chapter, Lynne Britton taught her students to track a participant (butterflies) to notice how meaning was made in a short poem. Other teachers have used this same technique to support students in noticing how they can stay on track and develop themes in their own writing. For example, Holly Graham, a middle school English teacher, used this technique to support students in reading and writing informational texts as a way of responding to the demands of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Holly was involved in the ACCELA Alliance as a doctoral student and she used the expanded TLC discussed in Chapter Four to design and research the implications of using SFL pedagogy as part of completing her dissertation (Graham, 2015; see also Gebhard & Graham, 2018). With a colleague from the science department at her school and a friend who worked at the Fish and Wildlife Service, Holly co-designed a unit focused on the decimation of a local bat population by a disease called White Nose Syndrome (WNS). This six-week unit was designed to support a heterogeneous class of seventh graders in: (1) learning to read scientific explanations about WNS and how it was impacting local ecosystems; (2) writing persuasive letters to government officials who might be able to affect change on behalf of the bats; and (3) developing a functional metalanguage to support them in analyzing how language simultaneously constructs ideas, enacts power dynamics, and manages the flow of information in disciplinary discourse. The questions Holly was interested 146 Registers in exploring were: How do students use SFL metalanguage in interpreting and producing texts? Do their uses of SFL metalanguage support critical language awareness, reflection, and literacy gains? And, if so, in what ways? The focus students in Holly’s study included “Kia,” a former ELL, and “Tally,” another student who had a history of struggling academically. Kia was born in Puerto Rico and identified as Puerto Rican. She reported speaking Spanish at home with her grandmother, but English with her mother, based on her mother’s insistence, so she could help her mother improve her English. Out of all of the students in Holly’s class, Kia had had the weakest apprenticeship to academic reading and writing practices as evidenced by her past grades and very low scores on state exams. Tally identified as White but associated with Latinx and African American peers. She spoke English at home with her mother and three stepbrothers, and in school with teachers, but used varieties of English, including African American English and code-mixed varieties of Spanish and English with peers. She also struggled to make sense of dense disciplinary texts as evidenced by a history of poor grades, low scores on state exams, and a referral to the special education team. Based on analyses of classroom transcripts and student writing samples, Holly found that Kia and Tally engaged with SFL, often playfully, to create their own functional metalanguage in ways that supported their engagement with scientific texts and their literacy development. For example, with scaffolding from Holly, Kia and Tally used SFL tools to engage not only in tracking themes within texts, but also identifying and tracking patterns across texts in different authors’ use of genre stages; process, participant, and circumstance types; and the zig-zag pattern. With reference to tracking themes, Holly supplied students with packages of different colored highlighters and taught them how to use different colors to track different themes, drawing attention to repeated words, synonyms, and pronouns that referred to the same idea or concept in an extended text. An example of how Tally tracked themes is shown in Figure 5.3, though her original colored markings have been altered to show up in this gray scale reproduction. It is important to note that the class had been learning how to track themes since the beginning of the school year when Holly introduced the practice. In the context of this unit, Holly used this practice to serve specific instructional goals, which included teaching students how to “stay on topic, not jump around too much, [or] drop a lexical chain” in drafting their advocacy letters (Gebhard & Graham, 2018).2 As the darkest line in Figure 5.3 shows, Tally used one color of highlighter to track the theme of White Nose Syndrome in her letter to Senator John Kerry, who represented Massachusetts at the time. As a result of her analysis, Tally determined that her main theme “tracked well” in a chain that included the repetition of words and phrases such as “White Nose Syndrome,” “disease,” “it,” and the abbreviation “WNS.” Moreover, she determined that information in the letter regarding Senator Kerry’s job in relation to the topic of WNS, shown Registers FIGURE 5.3 147 Tally’s tracking of themes in her draft of a letter to then Senator John Kerry (Gebhard & Graham, 2018) in one color, and the impact on humans, shown in another color, did not “track well” and therefore needed to be expanded upon or deleted. At the end of the unit, Holly mailed students’ final draft letters to the government officials they had selected, one of whom was federal Secretary of 148 Registers Agriculture at the time, Thomas Vilsack. Several weeks later, the class received a reply letter from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Interestingly, and unexpectedly, students in Holly’s class used their knowledge of not just mode, but also field and tenor resources in reacting to this reply. When this certified letter arrived, Holly thought the class would be thrilled. As illustrated in Figure 5.4, they were not. Kia and Tally gave the USDA a grade of “D” and declared the FIGURE 5.4 Student analysis of reply letter from U.S. Department of Agriculture (Gebhard & Graham, 2018) Registers 149 response a “horrible, bad letter,” accompanied by a “face palm” stick figure to graphically display their dissatisfaction. Continuing clockwise from the top of the letter to the right-side margin, Tally and Kia added additional derogatory comments such as “We know!!,” “They think we are nine,” and “what about the BATS!!!!????” They also used metalanguage to defend their critique with comments such as “no cohesion” and “Bad thesis!!” The degree to which students used SFL to critique the government’s response was even more apparent during the whole-class discussion (Gebhard & Graham, 2018): 1. Teacher: Great! Now take a look at this letter, are the authors sticking to what we called the language of science, like when we were explaining the bats and fungus? Longer clauses, clauses combined, using words like nouns and . . . umm, nouns turned into verbs . . .? 2. Josh: They kind of are, and they kind of aren’t. I mean at the beginning, they are . . . but umm . . . well they are being our definition of chit-chatty, sounds like they are talking, not writing about bats or science. But they do put lots of stuff before the verb, and new stuff at the end of sentences, so that’s kind of science-y, but it’s about the wrong stuff. 3. Kia: Yea, but their science language isn’t as informational as ours. I feel like our language was stronger than theirs, and just because they are the government, maybe they feel that they can do whatever they want with their language. Our science language though turned words around more, like nouns and verbs can switch. That’s science language. Like “approximate.” 4. Teacher: (laughing) Ok, anything else? 5. Tally: With their language, they didn’t impact any new information, like in science. Or . . . how they are going to try, or how they were going to make [the problem] better. They didn’t really stay with the topic either, or how they were going to help the fungus or like if there was a reason why they can’t do anything about it. They didn’t give us new facts to explain the fungus, which, umm . . . I think you need to do when you are explaining something new. So they didn’t really support their whole letter. Which made the letter pretty much fall apart. That’s not good science language. ... 6. Josh: The register is all over the place, the mood I got was, when I was reading it, was I kept getting distracted [by] it, hopping around all over the place. I know that they are like trying to inform us and be like look we are trying our best . . . and then telling us other stuff like what they are doing and what they do specifically, but I think that um, they were hopping around too much. And um, they um like did it on purpose, or else they didn’t even try. 150 Registers 7. Teacher: It is interesting that you say a register can give you a mood, what do you mean by that? A register can give you a mood? 8. Josh: Whether they are taking us seriously or not. 9. Teacher: So a register can put you in a mood of being taken seriously? 10. Tally: Yes! And they are trying to make us forget what we were writing them for . . . no lexical chain? No point. No point? No way we can follow a topic to argue back. It is on purpose Ms. Graham!3 As this interaction shows, Holly asked students to report on their analysis of the language of the government. A student named Josh responded that the register features of the government letter were reflective of “science-y” language because the author “put lots of stuff before the verb, and new stuff at the end of sentences . . . but it’s about the wrong stuff ” (line 2). In the language of this chapter, Josh was pointing out that the USDA letter writers had used packed participants and textual themes that gave information regarding time, manner, and place, but not in a way that provided a cohesive or satisfying response. Kia agreed with Josh and added that the letter was not that informative and that maybe the government “can do whatever they want with their language” (line 3). Tally chimed in, arguing that the letter did not “stay with the topic [or state] how they are going help” the bats. Therefore, she concluded, “they didn’t really support their whole letter” (line 5). Tally picked up on Kia’s critique of this government agency and how “they” used language to keep people from arguing back. She stated, “They are trying to make us forget what we were writing them for . . . no lexical chain? No point. No point? No way we can follow a topic to argue back. It is on purpose Ms. Graham!” (line 10). Summary In summarizing this chapter, it is helpful to articulate how it fits with the purpose of this book and builds on previous chapters. In Chapter Two, I introduced the problems Celine and Mr. Banks confronted in producing a publishable editorial in a college preparatory English class. I described how Mr. Banks, like many teachers, attempted to respond to what appeared to be an infinite number of problems at the genre and register levels in Celine’s text by writing comments in the margins, drawing squiggles under lines of text, crossing out paragraphs, painstakingly rewriting sentences, and correcting traditional grammatical “mistakes” and spelling errors. According to Ferris (2003), teachers spend hours responding to student work in these ways and students typically do not know how to make sense of these comments despite their teachers’ hard work. As a way of addressing this problem, this chapter, as well as previous ones, give teachers an alternative way of thinking about the teaching and learning of disciplinary literacy practices by providing examples of how “a little SFL goes a long way.” Chapter Three explored Halliday’s theory of SFL and Vygotsky’s Registers 151 conception of development, including ideas regarding the zone of proximal development and scaffolding. Chapter Four presented the concepts of genre, register, and the teaching and learning cycle and documented how ACCELA teachers have used these concepts to plan, implement, critically reflect upon, and disseminate findings from action-oriented research projects. These projects were designed to support multilingual learners in reading, writing, and discussing academic texts in culturally responsive ways that are also aligned with state and national standards. Building on Chapter Four, this chapter focused on the concept of register by describing how ACCELA teachers have used an understanding of field resources, including different types of processes, participants, and circumstances; tenor resources, including mood, modality, and appraisal; and mode resources, including theme/rheme, nominalization, cohesive devices, and tracking themes to support students’ critical literacy development. Praxis Planning a Curricular Unit Using the Expanded TLC Working in collaborative groups, continue using the expanded TLC introduced in Chapter Four to plan a curricular unit that is linguistically and culturally responsive and standards-based (Figure 4.2). The tasks below target Stage Two: Identifying Model Texts and Assessment Criteria. In particular, these tasks are designed to support your group in identifying and analyzing model texts as this step will inform how you will design very targeted instructional materials to scaffold disciplinary literacy practices. Aspects of assessment, while touched on, will be further developed in future chapters given the demands of getting started with conducting a genre and register analysis of a model text. For an example of how a pre-service teacher used this approach to design a lesson related to the literary themes in Trevor Noah’s (2016) Born a Crime, see Figure 5.5 at the conclusion of this chapter. In addition, Chapter Nine provides examples related to the teaching and learning of mathematical and scientific concepts at the secondary level. Task Directions and Topics for Discussion 1. 2. Review the three reading passages you selected at the end of Chapter Four. These texts should be supportive of planning standards-based curriculum that is also linguistically and culturally responsive (see Stage One of the expanded TLC in Figure 4.2). Select one passage that you will conduct a genre and register analysis on based on your emerging understanding of SFL, disciplinary genres, and disciplinary registers. The first couple of times you conduct a genre and register analysis it may seem like an unnecessarily time-consuming and onerous way 152 3. Registers to approach planning curriculum. However, with practice, teachers and students, even very young ones, develop the ability to conduct these kinds of analyses rather quickly and with good results (e.g., Gebhard, Chen, & Britton, 2014; Moore & Schleppegrell, 2014). Prepare to conduct a genre and register analysis: a. Use Table 4.2 and your independent reading of SFL literature (see Chapter Four’s praxis section) to prime your thinking about the type of passage you selected, which should represent a high-frequency/highstakes genre in your content area (e.g., a type of recount, narrative, report, explanation, or argument). Use Table 5.A to summarize your understanding of some of the expected ways language and other semiotic systems are typically used in the type of text you are targeting. TABLE 5.A Expected genre and register features GENRE REGISTER Expected genre stages Expected field choices Expected tenor choices Expected mode choices *add additional rows as needed b. Make a commitment to developing a beginning understanding of SFL concepts, not mastering them, not capturing every last possible feature you could notice and teach about this text, and not worrying about making mistakes. Rather, keep in mind your goal is to develop three or four new ways of literally seeing and then explicitly and critically teaching your students how language and other meaning-making systems work in a demanding reading and writing project you will assign. c. Because you most likely have never looked at language in this way before, expect it to be challenging and to make some revisions to your thinking as you go along. Also, because SFL is not about teaching fixed rules for language usage, members of your group may come up with different analyses. This is to be expected. ACCELA teachers who embraced some of the fuzziness of SFL and used their collective disciplinary judgment tended to be those who made the most strides in using SFL tools for teaching and learning. d. Have an open mind so you can discover something new about language that will inform how you approach reading, writing, and critically discussing the genres you encounter in completing your degrees and entering the work force (e.g., reading and writing about theoretical concepts, case studies of a learner, curricular units, lesson plans, analyses of student learning). Registers 153 e. Purchase a package of colored highlighters because you will mark up your passage with different colors to help you see patterns in how authors make meaning in expected and unexpected ways at the genre and register levels. f. Make multiple copies of your passage so you can focus on one aspect of the text’s genre and register at a time: first, genre stages; then, field; next, tenor; and last, mode choices. 4. 5. Conduct a genre analysis of the passage you selected. Highlight and name the genre stages in the text you selected. To support you in completing this task, review Table 5.A and the analysis of emails in Chapter Four. In naming the genre stages, it is helpful to ask, “What is the job of this paragraph, set of sentences, or sentence?”, especially if you are analyzing a short text that is not separated into multiple paragraphs. Prepare to conduct a register analysis on a key portion of your text. This analysis will include looking at the field, tenor, and mode choices a particular author made in producing a specific text in a particular context of situation. Remember, the purpose of conducting this close linguistic analysis is for you to develop a deeper and more explicit understanding of how language and other meaning-making systems work at the clause level in a genre you routinely assign or will assign students to comprehend and produce. This analysis will provide you with valuable information required to implement the expanded TLC. a. Select a portion of your text for register analysis: • • • • As a rule of thumb, limit the length to 100 to 150 lines of text. The purpose of limiting the amount of text you analyze at the register level is to support you in learning to use SFL tools in a meaningful and manageable way for the purpose of designing curriculum, instruction, and assessments—not to become a theoretical linguist. Therefore, keep in mind that the purpose of analyzing this passage is to help you focus the purpose of the instructional unit you are designing and plan carefully how you are going to explicitly scaffold both disciplinary knowledge and literacy practices for all students, including ELLs. You can analyze a passage that is longer or shorter, but keep in mind that the goal is to learn how to use SFL to see patterns in a genre you will routinely assign students to read, write, and discuss (e.g., recounts, narratives, explanations, reports, arguments). If you are working with a short text that is about 100 to 150 lines in total, analyze the entire text (e.g., emails, The Giving Tree). If you are working with very short texts, such as a type of poem or set of mathematical explanations, analyze several examples in order for a patterned way of using meaning-making resources to emerge. 154 Registers • If you are working with a longer text, select an important section of the passage that is closely aligned with goals of the unit you are designing (e.g., an explanation of an important graph in a math or science textbook, the introduction to an argument regarding a major historical event, an interaction between characters in a novel that reveals a character’s transformation). Figure 5.5 shows an example of such excerpting from an eighth grade English language arts classroom. b. Break your selection into clauses. Recall that sentences in disciplinary texts can be long and densely packed with embedded clauses and abstract vocabulary or they can be short and very concrete (see Table 5.1). These differences can make analyzing the register of a text at the sentence level more or less difficult, as the case may be. Therefore, to support your analysis of dense texts, I recommend breaking up your passage to focus on the clause, not the sentence. To do this: • • • Identify the main verbs in your passage. These are the ones on which time or tense is marked. Decide which participants and circumstances go with each main verb using the simple question “who did what to whom under which circumstances?” to guide your intuition about each clause. Place a backslash between clauses. The following is an example of a packed sentence broken down into three separate clauses. The main verbs, those marked with tense, are in bold. After the avalanche, despite the blinding snow and driving wind, the hikers climbed to a small outcropping of rocks/ where they took shelter in a quickly improvised snow cave/ and made a small fire to keep from freezing to death. • • • Note that sometimes words that seem to be verbs are actually functioning like participants and circumstances (e.g., blinding snow, driving wind, to keep from freezing to death). Note also that we do not typically repeat unnecessary words. For example, in the third clause, there is no need to repeat the subject “they” before “made a fire.” This missing grammatical participant can be inferred and is said to be ellipsed. Some teachers find it helpful to type key passages with the clause breaks on separate lines to support students’ reading comprehension and their collective ability to analyze dense texts during classroom discussions (see example in Figure 5.5 at the end of this section). Registers 6. 155 Once you have marked the clause breaks, analyze the field resources that construct disciplinary ideas and experiences in your passage: a. Using one color, highlight all the processes that have tense markers (e.g., are making, were making, made, will make, had been making, can make, could have been making, could not have been making, see Table 3.1 for a review of the tense system in English). b. Using a different color, highlight the participants that act as the “doers” and the “done to” (see Table 5.3). As an example, the participants in each clause below are underlined. This example illustrates the difference between a noun acting as a participant versus a circumstance. After the avalanche, despite the blinding snow and driving wind, the hikers climbed to an outcropping of rocks/ where they took shelter in a quickly improvised snow cave/ and [they] made a small fire to keep from freezing to death. c. Using another color, highlight the circumstances that provide details regarding time, place, manner, purpose, and cause (see Table 5.4). As an example, the circumstances in the following clauses are in italics. After the avalanche, despite the blinding snow and driving wind, the hikers climbed to an outcropping of rocks/ where they took shelter in a quickly improvised snow cave/ and [they] made a small fire to keep from freezing to death. These circumstances provide information regarding time (“after the avalanche”), manner (“despite the blinding snow and driving wind”), place (“to an outcropping of rocks”), manner and place (“in a quickly improvised snow cave”), and purpose (“to keep from freezing to death”). Make a field table in which you list and categorize the following: • • • The specific processes the author selected and their type (e.g., action, saying, sensing, relating, existential) The specific participants the author selected and their type (e.g., “doer” or “done to,” sensor, sayer, generalized participant, packed participant) The specific circumstances the author selected and their type (e.g., time, manner, place, cause). e. Identify any patterns in how field resources in this passage construct ideas and experiences. See the sample table of field resources (Table 5.B) for an example. • in a quickly improvised snow cave/manner and place *Add additional rows as needed to determine a pattern, teaching focus, and assessment criteria for students’ final projects to keep from freezing to death/causal • to an outcropping of rocks/place • Teach students to highlight and make lists of how expert writers use circumstances to add details regarding time, place, manner, purpose, and cause. Possible activity: Have students compare two copies of the same reading passage, one with and one without circumstances. Require students to produce texts with circumstances of time, manner, place, and cause as a way of adding detail to their final projects. Assess the degree to which students “add details” to their texts using a wider variety of circumstances that are functional for their specific purpose and audience. Implications for Practice (instruction & assessment) • Emerging Patterns Hikers/doers shelter/done to after the avalanche/time Details in texts are constructed through the They/doers a small fire/ use of circumstances [They]/doers done to despite the blinding snow and driving wind/manner Circumstance Type Climbed/doing Took/doing Made/doing Participant Type (done to) Participant Type (doer) Process Type SAMPLE TABLE OF FIELD RESOURCES TABLE 5.B Sample Table of Field Resources Registers f. 7. 157 Based on the field patterns you notice, brainstorm some ideas regarding how you might use insights from your analysis to design grade-level disciplinary literacy development instruction using the expanded TLC (see Figure 4.2). Analyze tenor resources that construct the author’s voice and the relationship between the author and the reader, and/or between characters in the passage you selected. a. Note the author’s choice of grammatical mood (e.g., use of commands, statements, questions, see Table 5.5). b. Using a fresh copy of the text, highlight instances of modality, if the author uses any at all (e.g., might, may, can, should, must, certainly, perhaps, see Table 5.7). c. Using a different color, highlight how the author uses appraisal resources, if any, to construct emotions, evaluations of things, and judgments of people (see Table 5.8) d. Make a table such as Table 5.C to identify any patterns in how tenor resources construct meaning in this passage. Based on the tenor patterns you notice, brainstorm some ideas regarding how you might use insights from your analysis to support your students’ grade-level disciplinary literacy development using the expanded TLC (see Figure 4.2). TABLE 5.C Sample Table of Tenor Resources SAMPLE TABLE OF TENOR RESOURCES Type of Degree of Grammatical Mood Modality Appraisal Type Emerging Patterns Implications for Practice (instruction & assessment) *Add additional rows as needed to determine a pattern, teaching focus, and assessment criteria for students’ final projects 8. Analyze the author’s choice of mode resources in this passage to manage the flow of information and attitudes coherently and cohesively: a. Highlight all of the cohesive devices the author uses (see Table 3.3) b. Highlight the theme of each clause. Make a list of these themes and see if there is a particular pattern that emerges to support the progression and development of themes in this passage (see Table 5.9 for some typical patterns) c. Highlight instances of nominalization. Nominalizations are very prevalent in informational texts, but less so in narratives. Notice how 158 Registers nominalization supports the construction of abstract ideas and experiences, which is an aspect of field, but they also the support the zig-zag pattern of theme progression in informational texts, which is an aspect of mode. d. Select a key theme or participant in this passage and track it using a highlighter (e.g., the main topic in an explanation or a character in a novel). Write out the lexical chain that forms across the passage to see how the author builds the field of the text while also staying on topic (e.g., see Figure 5.3). e. Make a table such as Table 5.D to identify patterns in how mode resources construct meaning in this passage. Based on the mode patterns you notice, brainstorm some ideas regarding how you might use insights from your analysis to support your students’ grade-level disciplinary literacy practicing using the expanded TLC (see Figure 4.2). TABLE 5.D Sample Table of Mode Resources SAMPLE TABLE OF MODE RESOURCES List of Cohesive Devices List of Themes List of Nominalizations Type of theme/rheme patterns (e.g., zig-zag) Tracking Participants Emerging Patterns Implications for Practice (instruction & assessment) *Add additional rows as needed to determine a pattern, teaching focus, and assessment criteria for students’ final projects 9. As an example of a concrete lesson that was developed as a result of praxis activities such as those listed above, Figure 5.5 shows an artifact from an English language arts lesson designed by a pre-service English language arts teacher named Zemora Tevah. Zemora created this lesson in collaboration with Holly Graham as part of completing coursework and pre-practicum requirements in a secondary English master’s degree and licensure program at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. In this program, teachers are required to develop a curricular unit using the expanded TLC. This handout was developed to teach multilingual eighth graders how to read, write, and critically discuss Trevor Noah’s Born A Crime (2016), a memoir that explores issues of race, language, and identity in apartheid South Africa. Note the following about Zemora and Holly’s lesson: a. The goal of the lesson is stated and reflects the goals of the curricular unit. While not listed on this handout, this lesson is also aligned with specific state and national standards. Registers FIGURE 5.5 159 A pre-service teacher’s handout designed to support the reading and analysis of Trevor Noah’s Born a Crime b. The handout requires students to track the pronoun “I” in a selected passage from their assigned text. This task scaffolds students in analyzing the literal, inferential, and literary meaning of the passage. Zemora and Holly developed this focus as a result of: • • • • • Exploring one literary theme in this memoir (e.g., shifting concepts of race, language, and identity); Selecting a key passage; Breaking the passage into clauses for students to support reading comprehension and analysis using highlighters; Conducting a register analysis and identifying a specific SFL tool students could use to unlock the meaning of the text (tracking participants that refer to “I”); Asking students to select five clauses that capture aspects of Trevor Noah’s identity based on their analysis. c. During the lesson, students used the handout and shared their insights. 160 Registers d. Holly and Zemora analyzed classroom discussion and evaluated samples of students’ work to reflect on the effectiveness of the lesson. e. In the context of completing a larger project using the expanded TLC, students used their close analysis and discussion of Trevor Noah’s memoir to write short memoirs of their own using the genre and register features they identified. Notes 1 Reprinted from Reclaiming recess in urban schools: The potential of systemic functional linguistics for ELLs and their teachers. M. Gebhard, R. Harman, & W. Seger, 2007, Language Arts, 84(5), 419–430. Copyright 2007 by the National Council of Teachers of English. Reprinted with permission. 2 Holly introduced the concept of lexical chains, which refers to how strands of meaning are expressed in strings of words that are “related by repetition, similar or opposite meanings, association, or part/whole relationships” (Butt, Fahey, Feez, Spinks & Yallop, 2000, p. 211). 3 Figures 5.3, 5.4, and this transcript are reprinted from “Bats and grammar: developing critical language awareness in the context of school reform.” M. Gebhard & H. Graham, 2018, English Teaching: Practice and Critique. Reprinted with permission. References Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S., & Yallop, C. (2000). Using functional grammar: An explorer’s guide. Sydney: National Centre for English Teaching and Learning. Carpenter, B.D., Achugar, M., Walter, D., & Earhart, M. (2015). Developing teachers’ critical language awareness: A case study of guided participation. Linguistics and Education, 32, 82–97. Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling. London: Continuum. Coffin, C. (2009). Historical discourse: The language of time, cause and evaluation. New York: Bloomsbury. Derewianka, B. (2011). A new grammar companion for teachers (2nd ed.). Sydney: Primary English Teaching Association. Derewianka, B.M. & Jones, P. (2016). Teaching language in context (2nd ed.). South Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press. Droga, L., & Humphrey, S. (2003). Grammar and meaning: An introduction for primary teachers. New South Wales, Australia: Target Texts. Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2nd ed.). New York: Continuum. Ferris, D.R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. New York: Routledge. Gebhard, M., Chen, I., & Britton, L. (2014). “Miss, nominalization is a nominalization”: English language learners’ use of SFL metalanguage and their literacy practices. Linguistics and Education, 26, 106–125. Gebhard, M., & Graham, H. (2018). Bats and grammar: developing critical language awareness in the context of school reform. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 17(4), 281–297. Registers 161 Gebhard, M., Harman, R., & Seger, W. (2007). Reclaiming recess in urban schools: The potential of systemic functional linguistics for ELLs and their teachers. Language Arts, 84(5), 419–430. Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247–273. Graham, H. (2015). Using systemic functional linguistics to inform a language pedagogy in a middle school English classroom. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Halliday, M.A.K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5(2), 93–116. Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2006). Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Continuum. Janks, H. (2010). Literacy and power. New York: Routledge. Martin, J.R., & White, P.R.R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Moore, J., & Schleppegrell, M.J. (2014). Using a functional linguistics metalanguage to support academic language development in the English Language Arts. Linguistics and Education, 26, 92–105. Noah, T. (2016). Born a crime: Stories from a South African childhood. New York: Spiegel & Grau. Schleppegrell, M.J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Silverstein, S. (1964). The giving tree. New York: Harper & Row. Thompson, G. (2014). Introducing functional grammar (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge. Young, L. & Fitzgerald, B. (2006). The power of language: How discourse influences society. London: Equinox. 6 POLICIES AND PRACTICES TO SUPPORT ELLS’ DISCIPLINARY LITERACY DEVELOPMENT A Civil Rights Perspective I’m never sure who is and who isn’t an ELL in my class. I just treat them all the same. –“Mrs. Ward,” seventh grade social studies teacher Many teachers talk about treating all students the same regardless of their language backgrounds and previous schooling experiences as a point of pride. They describe how they do not differentiate between who is and is not an ELL, but hold all students accountable regardless of language, race, class, and gender differences by providing all students with the same instruction. On the face of it, there is something laudable about teachers talking about their work from a “difference-blind” perspective given the number of studies that find teachers who have high expectations for all students are more successful than those who do not (e.g., Lucas, 2011). However, research also demonstrates that race, class, gender, and language are highly consequential to how students experience schools. Further, effective teachers are not colorblind or difference-blind at all (e.g., Nieto & Bode, 2018). Rather, studies such as those discussed in Chapters Three, Four, and Five demonstrate that effective teachers: (1) attend closely to learners’ diverse backgrounds, needs, and interests in planning linguistically and culturally responsive curriculum; (2) design literacy scaffolds to enable students to meet state and national standards by modeling, deconstructing, and co-constructing high-stakes genres with students to make linguistic know-how highly visible and open to critical reflection; (3) analyze the texts produced by their students to assess their school’s ability to address persistent inequities in educational outcomes; and (4) share their work with colleagues to support their professional development and that of others (see the extended TLC in Figure 4.2). A Civil Rights Perspective 163 In addition, effective teachers are aware of the complexities of federal and state policies designed to protect the civil rights of multilingual students, both within their immediate classroom context and the larger institutional context of schooling in which they work (see Figure 6.1). For example, since the signing of NCLB legislation in 2002, more ELLs have dropped out of school because they have not had adequate access and support for learning how to read and write disciplinary genres on high-stakes exams required for graduation (Darling-Hammond, 2006). Moreover, teacher education programs have historically not prepared teachers to teach both disciplinary knowledge and the associated disciplinary literacy practices (Turkan, de Oliveira, Lee, & Phelps, 2014). For example, licensed ESL and bilingual teachers develop a knowledge of bilingualism, second language acquisition, second language literacy development, and language pedagogy, but most have not studied a specific content area in great depth. Likewise, elementary and secondary content teachers typically have a knowledge of child or adolescent development and the content area they teach, but typically do not have an adequate knowledge of how ELLs develop disciplinary literacy practices (e.g., Gebhard, Chen, Graham, & Gunawan, 2013; Turkan et al., 2014). As a result, ELLs and former ELLs, such as Celine who was profiled in Chapter Two, often struggle when they transition from ESL/bilingual programs to general education classes in ways that jeopardize their access to an equitable education (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 2006; Harklau, 1994, 2000; Ortmeier-Hooper, 2012). FIGURE 6.1 Text/context dynamics in schools (focus on genre and register) 164 A Civil Rights Perspective To explore the complexities of this institutional problem, the purpose of this chapter is to provide readers who are new to considering the education of multilingual students from a civil rights perspective with a greater understanding of how schools determine who an ELL is and how policies have developed over time to respond to the educational needs of this growing population. In addition, this chapter describes an influential organization in the area of K-12 language education called the WIDA Consortium (World-class Instructional Design and Assessment). This organization has developed language development standards, assessments, professional development workshops, and research initiatives drawing, in part, on the ideas of Halliday and Vygotsky (WIDA, 2012). The purpose of these initiatives is to inform the teaching, learning, and assessment of disciplinary literacy development in English and Spanish in the United States and worldwide. To support readers in better understanding and critiquing institutional policies, programs, and assessments designed for ELLs, including those developed by WIDA, this chapter explores the following questions: • • • What is the institutional definition of an “ELL” and how has the demographic profile of this population changed over time? What language policies and programs have historically been institutionalized in the United States to protect the civil rights of ELLs? How successful have these programs been? What is the WIDA Consortium and how has it attempted to respond to the professional needs of educators who are responsible for teaching all students how to read, write, and discuss disciplinary texts in the context of current high-stakes school reforms (e.g., NCLB, CCSS, NGSS)? To explore these questions, this chapter begins with a demographic profile of students who are designated as ELLs in U.S. public schools and an outline of different types of bilingual and ESL programs that have been institutionalized to protect these students’ civil rights. Next, this chapter describes how the WIDA Consortium created a comprehensive set of language development standards and assessments, which have been adopted by many states and countries. These standards are aligned with the CCSS and are intended to guide national, state, and school-level policies to support the disciplinary literacy development of students learning in English and/or Spanish in the United States and around the world. More central to the purpose of this book is that the conceptual framework informing WIDA is anchored in a social semiotic perspective of language and literacy development that draws, in part, on Halliday’s SFL and Vygotsky’s concept of the zone of proximal development (see Chapters Three, Four, and Five). This chapter concludes with a praxis section that guides readers in comparing an ESL or bilingual classroom with a general education classroom to draw attention to some of the challenges ELLs confront in local schools as they A Civil Rights Perspective 165 traverse institutional boundaries and how educators can use the expanded TLC to address these challenges. Twenty-First Century Demographic Changes in U.S. Public Schools The population of students attending K-12 public schools in the United States has become linguistically, racially, economically, and culturally more diverse over the last several decades, making updates to the professional development of all K-12 teachers and teacher educators a high priority. For example, the population of students who identify as “White” dropped from 29 million in 1995 to 25.6 million in 2011. Simultaneously, the population of students who identify as “Black” or “Native American” remained more or less constant, the population of students who identify as “Asian” rose, and those who identify as “Hispanic” nearly doubled from about 6.0 million to 11.8 million during the same time period (NCES, 2013). These changes have resulted in a steady increase in the number of students who are officially designated as ELLs. The federal government, in line with the official definition established by NCLB legislation, uses the institutional label ELL for students who: (1) are between the ages of three and 21; (2) attend an elementary or secondary school; (3) speak a language other than English; and (4) have a proficiency in English that is insufficient to support academic learning in general education courses where English is the language of instruction (NCLB, 2002). However, given this definition, it is very difficult to determine the exact number of ELLs attending U.S. public schools. In large part, this is because there are significant inconsistencies in the ways different states require schools to identify ELLs, assess their English proficiency, and track changes in their proficiency over time (e.g., Valdés & Castellón, 2011). Regardless, survey data indicates that a high proportion of U.S. citizens speak a language other than English at home. For example, 2011 census data indicates this figure to be 20% or 60.6 million Americans over the age of five. From this group, although they use varieties of their home languages and English in very important ways not addressed by the survey, over 22% report speaking English “not well” or “not at all” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). U.S. Department of Education statistics show similar demographic changes in the population of ELL students attending elementary and secondary schools. For example, in 1993, the population of ELLs attending schools was estimated at 2.1 million or 5.1% (NCES, 2004). By 2011, this figure more than doubled to 4.4 million, or 9.1% of the overall school population, leading to a projection that by the year 2025 one out of every four students attending a public school in the United States will be officially classified as an ELL (NCES, 2013). Not surprisingly, almost every state has been impacted by these changes in some way. States reporting the highest percentages of ELLs include California (25%), Nevada 166 A Civil Rights Perspective (20%), New Mexico (17%), Texas (15%), and Hawaii (14%; NCES, 2013). Many other states with lower overall percentages of ELLs have still experienced dramatic increases in the number of ELLs attending public schools, such as North Carolina (153% increase from prior year), Georgia (148%), and Nebraska (125%). Historically, these states have had lower numbers of ELLs compared to states that were formerly Spanish speaking territories of Mexico before being invaded and taken over by the United States in 1848 (Capps, Fix, Murray, Ost, Passel, & Herwantoro, 2005). These figures make it clear that all teachers working in public schools will likely, at some point in their careers, be responsible for supporting the disciplinary literacy development of ELLs. This likelihood is true regardless of whether they teach in urban, rural, suburban, or small town school districts. In addition, it is important to note that ELLs are not a homogeneous group. Rather, they represent approximately 400 different languages and come from parts of the world that differ greatly from previous waves of immigrants to the United States (Ramsey & O’Day, 2010). For example, in the 1900s most immigrants were White and born in Europe. In contrast, recent immigrants come mostly from Latin America. They also represent a wider range of the world’s languages, cultures, and religions than in the past. In 2012, out of the over 60 million Americans who reported speaking a language other than English at home: 62% spoke Spanish; 5% Chinese, including Cantonese and Mandarin; 3% Tagalog; and 2% many other languages including Arabic, Korean, and Vietnamese (Nwosu, Batalova, & Auclair, 2014). Moreover, counter to what many believe, ELLs are not always immigrants (Capps et al., 2005). Nationally, approximately 8% are “American Indian/Alaska Native” (NCES, 2008). States with the highest percentages of Native American students include Alaska (31%), Oklahoma (19%), and New Mexico (10%; NCES, 2013). Other non-immigrant multilinguals have strong ties to Puerto Rico, a Spanish speaking territory of the United States. Therefore, it is important to note that many students who are institutionally designated as ELLs were born in the United States, are U.S. citizens, have relied on U.S. public schools for their education almost exclusively, and still have not been supported in learning to read and write disciplinary texts despite many years of schooling (e.g., Valdés & Castellón, 2011). Though there is incredible diversity among students who carry this institutional label, ELLs share some commonalities. They are likely to be students of color who contend with racism, poverty, and the social, economic, and political problems that accompany poverty. These problems include homelessness, hunger, a lack of access to basic health care, and limited access to technology (e.g., Capps et al., 2005). They are apt to be concentrated in under-resourced schools and taught by teachers who have not been adequately prepared to support them in simultaneously learning both content knowledge and disciplinary literacy practices (e.g., Turkan et al., 2014). For example, schools with higher percentages of ELLs are also likely to have higher percentages of new and inexperienced A Civil Rights Perspective 167 teachers—a trend that is likely to only further widen the persistent educational disparities that exist for students whose home language is not English or is a non-dominant variety of English (e.g., Cosentino de Cohen & Clewell, 2007; Roblero, 2013). Collectively, these trends constitute a serious challenge to the premise that the purpose of public schooling is to provide all students with access to free and equitable education as a way of fostering individual freedom and social mobility as well societal democracy and economic growth. In response, a number of policy makers have called for greater resources to be dedicated to the recruitment and professional development of pre- and in-service teachers who are ready to take responsibility for the disciplinary literacy development of all students, including ELLs (e.g., Turkan et al., 2014). However, a review of policies across all states reveals only a few have licensing requirements for all teachers that focus on the education of ELLs. This lack of attention has become a pressing problem as elementary and secondary teachers are increasingly held accountable for teaching all students how to read and write disciplinary texts as a result of the passage of NCLB legislation in 2002, and the widespread adoption of the CCSS in 2010. In addition, there are too few ESL and bilingual teachers to reasonably support the education of ELLs across all content areas, especially in the upper grades where disciplinary knowledge becomes more specialized. Credentialed ESL and bilingual specialists are knowledgeable of linguistics, principles of first and second oral language development, bilingualism, multiculturalism, language pedagogy, and language policies. However, they are not routinely prepared to teach how disciplinary genres and registers work across all content areas, nor do they typically have access to materials that would support the development of more advanced content-based instruction (e.g., McLaughlin, Glaab, & Hilliger Carrasco, 2014). Nonetheless, it is common for ESL and bilingual teachers to be assigned to teach in multiple content areas using whatever resources they can find. This low level of institutional support does not provide ELLs with a solid enough foundation in disciplinary literacy practices to support them in receiving an equitable education and navigating the literacy demands of a rapidly changing social and economic world (e.g., Gebhard, 2004; New London Group, 1996). Elementary, secondary, ESL, and bilingual teachers are aware of the intensification of the demands placed on them without additional support. For example, Gándara and her colleagues provide compelling evidence that content area teachers feel unprepared to design curriculum, instruction, and assessments for ELLs (Gándara, Maxwell-Jolly, & Driscoll, 2005). In a large scale survey of teachers working in small, medium, and large school districts in California, these authors report that teachers feel extremely challenged by their inability to teach disciplinary literacies to ELLs. These teachers ranked finding appropriate curricular materials as one of the most significant obstacles to their ability to teach ELLs and indicated that they used the same textbook materials with ELLs as with non-ELLs despite acknowledging the inappropriateness of this make-do strategy. Moreover, 168 A Civil Rights Perspective secondary teachers reported feeling a greater degree of insecurity about teaching ELLs than their elementary counterparts who have had more coursework and experience teaching reading and writing. Equally concerning is that the teachers who participated in this study, including those who worked in schools with high numbers of ELLs, reported receiving very minimal, if any, professional development focusing on how to teach ELLs over the previous five years of their careers. This lack of professional development is troubling because NCLB legislation placed a great deal of emphasis on teacher quality (e.g., Lucas, 2011). When NCLB was passed into law, it included provisions to ensure all students would be taught by highly qualified teachers who were required to pass state licensure exams and meet other standards related to teaching in their discipline. However, NCLB’s definition of high quality was relatively silent on the topic of what all teachers need to know and be able to educate the growing number of language learners who struggle in negotiating the demands of disciplinary discourses, fail high-stakes exams, and as a result are unable to graduate from high school (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 2006). Students’ Civil Rights and Approaches to Language Education Data regarding the failure of schools to meet the needs of ELLs, coupled with the lack of adequate forms of professional development, provoked the U.S. Department of Justice to exert more pressure on state educational systems. For example, the federal Department of Justice found that teachers in Massachusetts were not meeting the educational needs of ELLs, which they declared was a violation of students’ civil rights as stipulated by the Federal Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974. As a result, in 2013, the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education mandated a professional development course and specified a set of standards that all pre- and in-service teachers needed to meet through an initiative called Rethinking the Teaching of English Language Learners (RETELL) if they were to earn or retain their teaching license. This mandate is representative of the role the Department of Justice has historically played in advocating for the rights of ELLs based on the landmark Supreme Court case Lau v. Nichols in 1974 (e.g., de Jong, 2011). This case originated in San Francisco when a group of Chinese parents filed a lawsuit against the school district maintaining that their children did not have equal access to the public education system if instruction was provided in a language that was not comprehensible to them. The San Francisco Unified Schools responded that the district was not in the wrong because it provided Chinese American students with the same educational services that all students received. However, based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Supreme Court disagreed and sided with the parents. In their ruling, the court stated that providing ELLs with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum does not provide equal access to public A Civil Rights Perspective 169 education if students do not understand the language of instruction. The courts thereby made a landmark decision in declaring that “same does not imply equal” (e.g., de Jong, 2011, p. 138). After this groundbreaking ruling, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights created the Lau Remedies, which required school districts to identify students’ home language, assess their English proficiency, implement appropriate models of educational support, and assess the effectiveness of programs for language learners. During the 1970s and 1980s, many educators interpreted the Lau Remedies as a mandate for bilingual education and began implementing a variety of programs types that differed greatly in their ideological perspectives, goals, pedagogical approaches, and effectiveness. For example, bilingual immersion, two-way, and dual-language bilingual programs share the goal of supporting full academic biliteracy and multiculturalism for all students enrolled based on a belief that linguistic and cultural diversity are social, cultural, cognitive, political, and economic assets in an increasingly globalized world. Therefore, these programs are designed for groups of bilingual students who speak the same home language and English-speaking monolingual students whose families want their children to become fully bilingual and bicultural (e.g., bilingual charter and private schools, de Jong, 2011). These bilingual schools are different from “maintenance” and “transitional” bilingual programs, which were designed for ELLs only. Maintenance bilingual programs are structured to support students in continuing to develop literacy in their home language while also developing literacy in an additional language. Transitional programs, in contrast, only provide a limited amount of home language instruction to facilitate students’ transition to all-English instruction as soon as possible based on a belief that the goal of schooling is to support the acculturation of ELLs to the dominant language and culture as quickly as possible (e.g., de Jong, 2011). Studies comparing the effectiveness of these different approaches have found that programs that support full disciplinary biliteracy tend to be more successful than those that support monolingualism (e.g., Thomas & Colliers, 2002). Moreover, states that configure policies to support full bilingualism have higher rates of success in educating ELLs than states that advocate English-only programs (e.g., Lopez & McEneaney, 2012). However, it is important to note that program labels can be very misleading because they are not always implemented with fidelity given that teachers often lack the professional expertise and curricular resources needed to deliver high-quality bilingual instruction. For example, teachers in the United States, compared to teachers in other parts of the world, typically lack academic fluency in more than one language because of the United States’ commitment to monolingualism. Moreover, teachers who do have fluency in more than one language often lack the professional expertise needed to design quality bilingual disciplinary instruction, making the success of these programs precarious. Last, status differentials between different language communities are 170 A Civil Rights Perspective influential in shaping the effectiveness of programs. For example, ELLs from marginalized communities attending schools in poorer districts have fewer institutional supports for quality instruction than ELLs from high-status communities who attend schools in wealthier neighborhoods. Therefore, status issues often determine the degree to which a bilingual program will be adequately funded, properly implemented, publicly supported, and result in desired social, economic, and political outcomes (e.g., Brisk, 2006). K–12 ESL Program Types Push-in and Pull-out ESL In regard to K-12 ESL programs, some are designed such that an ESL specialist is “pushed in” to classrooms to co-teach with content teachers. In other schools, students are “pulled out” of content classes and attend a certain number of ESL classes matched to their level of language development, meaning ELLs are “mainstreamed” for a greater number of content classes as their English proficiency develops. Regardless of whether a school implements a push-in or pull-out program, ESL classes should be taught by teachers who have expertise in: • • • • • • • • • Linguistic systems Language and literacy development Multiculturalism Planning, implementing, and reflecting on language instruction Language assessment practices Language teaching technologies ESL methods ESL research Policies shaping the education of ELLs. An international organization called Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), has determined that these areas of expertise will enable ESL teachers to support the language and literacy development of ELLs, help immigrant students and their families navigate the cultural demands of U.S. schooling, and assume leadership roles in their schools and communities to advocate for their students. Sheltered English Immersion (SEI) One specific approach to ESL instruction is called sheltered English immersion (Table 6.1). This method is often vaguely defined as a teaching strategy that uses language and content to make academic subject matter more comprehensible to language learners. However, explanations of the phrase “sheltered English A Civil Rights Perspective 171 TABLE 6.1 Sheltered English Immersion (SEI) Goals Description and Critique Knowledge Base of Teaching* Support students designated as “ELLs” in developing content knowledge and the literacy practices that construct this knowledge Instruction centers on designing curriculum to support both language and content objectives Critics argue that this approach does not support multilingualism or challenge monolingual ideologies. In addition, critics question if it is possible to teach disciplinary knowledge without teaching how genres and registers work to make specialized, noneveryday meanings. Teachers have expertise in a discipline (e.g., math, science, history, English language arts) and an understanding of: • Basic structure and function of language • Second language acquisition • The nature of oral language interaction in literacy development • The nature of academic literacy development • Sociocultural, emotional, and political factors shaping second language learning • The diversity and backgrounds of ELL populations • SEI principles and strategies outlined in the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) model • Methods of assessing ELLs • Federal and state laws pertaining to ELLs * This list is based on SEI standards for pre- and in-service teachers in Massachusetts. immersion” rarely provide specifics regarding what ELLs should be “sheltered” from or how to make dense texts comprehensible when ELLs are immersed in the academic reading and writing demands of high-stakes school reforms (e.g., NCLB, CCSS). Wright (2015) provides some clarity by explaining that the word “sheltered” is a metaphor for simplifying academic language without “watering down” the content to “protect” ELLs from the often overwhelming language demands of “mainstream” content-based instruction (p. 92). To further clarify what this approach to instruction looks like in classroom practice, Echevarria, Vogt, and Short (2007) developed the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol or SIOP model. This model provides educators with a 30-item planning and reflection guide to support them in designing, implementing, and assessing the quality of content instruction for ELLs. This model gained wide acceptance because evidence suggests it is a valid and reliable 172 A Civil Rights Perspective pedagogical approach for teachers and observation tool for administrators. The 30-point guide focuses attention on: • • • • • Building students’ background knowledge of the content being studied (e.g., hands-on tasks, use of multimedia and instructional technologies). Providing students with comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985). Drawing on a psycholinguistic perspective of second language acquisition, comprehensible input is modified language that is just slightly above the learners’ current level of language proficiency. With beginning language learners, comprehensible input is characterized by a slower rate of speech; the use of more regular word order; limited use of dense clauses; the repetition of key words; the use of gestures, visuals, and demonstrations to convey meaning in nonlinguistic ways; the elaboration of language learners’ contributions using complete sentences and more technical vocabulary; and the use of frequent comprehension checks. Providing students with ample opportunities for oral interactions with peers through pair and small-group tasks, in addition to teacher-led whole-class instruction. Providing students with ample time for practice and the application of new language forms to support them in developing both disciplinary knowledge and literacies through their use of talk and print. Assessment of students’ progress toward meeting both content and language objectives. The combination of explicit attention to both language and content objectives is a highly significant component of the SIOP model. However, as the developers of this model make clear, this approach is not meant to replace crucial bilingual and ESL services, especially for beginning and intermediate language learners. The developers of the SIOP model are also clear that attention to language means more than focusing on isolated vocabulary words, but should include a focus on aspects of registers and genre in modified contentbased materials. Nonetheless, it should be noted that SEI approaches such as the SIOP model can inadvertently play into practices that “submerge” rather than “immerse” ELLs in English-only classrooms in a sink-or-swim fashion. This type of submersion is all the more likely for students whose teachers have not been provided with adequate forms of professional development and whose schools have inadequate institutional supports for bilingual and ESL education (e.g., access to native language supports and appropriate curricular materials). In addition, as students become more proficient in everyday English, the practice of continuing to simplify language can also be a problem, especially because studies have shown teachers often have low expectations for ELLs based on deficit views related to their immigration status, race, class, and gender (Gutiérrez, A Civil Rights Perspective 173 Larson, & Kreuter, 1995). These two issues—a lack of teacher professional development and general low expectations for ELLs—are important to combat because they are key factors that influence students’ academic trajectories in school (e.g., Valdés, 1995). Therefore, all teachers, including ESL teachers, bilingual specialists, and content area teachers, need to be very purposeful and reflective about how they modify the instruction they provide (e.g., speech, tasks, reading materials, writing assignments, assessments). In addition, they need to be explicit about how they design curriculum, instruction, and assessments to move all students along a continuum that values everyday meaning-making practices while also supporting the development of more expert and critical ways of using multilingual/multimodal resources within specific disciplines (e.g., Derewianka & Jones, 2016). Previous chapters have provided a discussion of some of the key differences between everyday language practices and more discipline-specific ways of using talk, print, and graphics in school. At the “everyday” end of the continuum, similar to definitions of “comprehensible input,” word choices tend to be more concrete and refer to objects or events occurring in the immediate context. In addition, grammatical patterns tend to be more regular and less dense, and the meanings of longer stretches of discourse are typically negotiated through face-to-face exchanges among speakers. In contrast, disciplinary varieties of language tend to be less spontaneous and interactive. They rely on varied and much denser grammatical structures that pack more information into long clauses, use more abstract and discipline-specific words, and use specific genres stages in structuring the development of an extended text for a specific purpose and audience. Therefore, rather than protecting or “sheltering” ELLs from challenging texts, advocates of an SFL approach to academic literacy instruction maintain that teachers and students need to develop an explicit and critical awareness of how language and other meaning-making systems work in the genres students are routinely required to read, write, and discuss in their respective content areas and grade levels. These genres, as discussed in previous chapters, include literary narratives, mathematical explanations, scientific explanations, and arguments regarding historical events (e.g., Derewianka & Jones, 2016). As described in these chapters, an SFL approach supports teachers in actively and critically apprenticing all students in analyzing how expert language users make specific linguistic choices to construct disciplinary content knowledge (i.e., the field), construct the voice of a text depending on their purpose and audience (i.e., tenor), and manage the flow of information to support the development of a coherent and cohesive extended stretch of discourse (e.g., mode). A number of SFL scholars have also made clear that providing students with a critical apprenticeship to reading, writing, and critiquing grade-level disciplinary texts necessitates supporting K-12 students’ use of their home language and community resources, even in states that have enacted English-only mandates (e.g., Brisk & Ossa Parra, 2018; Colombi, 2009). 174 A Civil Rights Perspective The WIDA Consortium An SFL perspective of disciplinary literacy development, in part, informs the work of a leading organization called the WIDA Consortium (Berg & Huang, 2015). This consortium’s original goal was to develop a research-based set of English language development standards and assessments as part of responding to the demands of NCLB and CCSS because states were in dire need of more reliable, valid, and fair methods of measuring ELLs’ language proficiency and progress (Bailey & Carroll, 2015). According to the organization’s website, WIDA began as a federally funded project among four states (Wisconsin, Indiana, Delaware, and Arkansas) and formed its name using the first letter of each. As the consortium expanded to include other states, it was renamed the World-class Instructional Design and Assessment Consortium to accommodate its acronym. Over time, WIDA’s mission has expanded to include advancing the “academic language development and academic achievement for children and youth who are culturally and linguistically diverse through high quality standards, assessments, research, and professional learning for educators” (www.wida.wisc.edu). According to the WIDA website, the consortium values “innovation, collaboration, [and] social justice,” which it defines as “challenging linguistic discrimination, cultural biases, and racism in education.” Drawing on a social semiotic perspective of language and learning, WIDA’s definition of academic literacy focuses on how language and other semiotic systems such as images, graphs, and mathematical symbols work to construct disciplinary meanings across content areas and in particular grade levels. This definition draws attention to how genres are comprised of stages, how sentences are syntactically constructed at the register level, and how disciplinary vocabulary is used to construct meaning in different content areas. As defined by Gottlieb and Ernst-Slavit (2014): Academic language is a complex concept that can be defined differently by researchers espousing distinct philosophical and methodological perspectives. Although often referred to as a list of ten important words for a unit of study, academic language is much more than vocabulary . . . [It] refers to the language used in school to acquire new or deeper understanding of the content and to communicate that understanding to others . . . [It] is characterized by the specific linguistic features associated with academic disciplines, including discourse features, grammatical constructions, and vocabulary across different language domains or modalities (listening, speaking, reading, writing) and content areas (language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies/history, among others). (pp. 2–3) As of 2018, 39 states belong to the WIDA Consortium in addition to over 300 international schools in nearly 80 countries. While membership is fluid, WIDA A Civil Rights Perspective 175 provides participating institutions with tools for assessing, placing, and monitoring the English and/or Spanish language proficiency of students enrolled in English as a second language, Spanish as a second language, or Spanish-English dual bilingual programs.1 Since its formation, WIDA’s evolving conceptual framework has informed the development of academic language development standards and assessments for K-12 English and Spanish language learners in collaboration with the University of Wisconsin, the Center for Applied Linguistics, and a data management company. These standards are intended to guide the teaching, learning, and assessment of English and/or Spanish as an additional language in the disciplines of language arts, math, science, and social studies for a rapidly growing, very diverse, and highly mobile student population. Therefore, a knowledge of these standards, or, more importantly, an ability to apprentice ELLs to meeting these standards, has become essential to the work of all teachers, not just ESL and bilingual specialists. WIDA’s English language development standards are assessed using a standardized exam called the ACCESS for ELLs (Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners). Their Spanish language development standards are assessed using an exam called PODER (Prueba Óptima del Desarrollo del Español Realizado). These criterion-referenced proficiency assessments are designed to measure students’ level of disciplinary literacy in English, Spanish, or both in grades K-12 in the United States and internationally. As of 2018, test items for both exams are developed and field tested by the Center for Applied Linguistics, while a private company is responsible for printing, distributing, scoring, and reporting assessment data. In 2012, WIDA revised the standards and assessments to make them more aligned with CCSS and NGSS as a way of keeping pace with sweeping changes in states that adopted these default national standards. The 2012 WIDA standards, more reflective of an SFL perspective of disciplinary literacy development, targeted five school-based ways of using language and other semiotic systems such as equations, graphs, and diagrams to construct content-specific meanings in grades K-12. These varieties of disciplinary language include: • • • • • Standard 1: Social and Instructional Language Standard 2: The Language of Language Arts Standard 3: The Language of Mathematics Standard 4: The Language of Science Standard 5: The Language of Social Studies. Unlike traditional language proficiency standards and assessments that target general vocabulary and grammatical forms, WIDA standards and assessments attempt to address the interrelated domains of speaking, listening, reading, and writing in specific content areas. In addition, these standards attempt to address 176 A Civil Rights Perspective the increasing cognitive and linguistic demands associated with learning to read, write, and critically discuss dense disciplinary texts at different grade levels (Bailey & Huang, 2011). In other words, rather than focusing narrowly on vocabulary items, sentence-level grammar, and students’ abilities to discuss, read, or write short texts in English or Spanish, WIDA attempts to account for the disciplinary literacy development of learners who are of different ages and therefore have different levels of cognitive maturity, have different levels of formal schooling and literacy in their home language, and are in the process of developing content knowledge in different subject areas associated with different grade levels (e.g., math, science, social studies, and language arts). In an attempt to account for these complex and interacting variables, the WIDA standards are organized not only around disciplinary language standards 1 through 5, but also grade levels and language proficiency levels. In other words, each of the five disciplinary language standards is meant to be interpreted with regard to what disciplinary language might include for students in different gradelevel clusters including kindergarten, grade 1, grades 2–3, 4–5, 6–8, and 9–12. In addition, the standards are meant to be interpreted with regard to what disciplinary language might look like for students at different “tiers” of language proficiency at each of these grade levels. Tier A includes beginners, Tier B intermediate learners, and Tier C more advanced learners. Across these intersecting domains related to age, language proficiency, and content area, students are assessed using a system with six levels. Level One represents the lowest and Level Six the highest within a progression that includes the categories entering, beginning, developing, expanding, bridging, and reaching (WIDA, 2012; see Table 6.2). TABLE 6.2 WIDA Proficiency Levels (adapted from WIDA, 2012) Level 1: Entering • • • Level 2: Emerging • • • Student relies primarily on oral interactions with peers and teachers, as well as gestures and graphic supports to negotiate disciplinary meanings orally and with print Student uses gestures, body language, and graphic representations to communicate in the content area Student relies primarily on single words and formulaic phrases to participate in and complete disciplinary tasks Student relies on oral interactions with peers and teachers, as well as gestures and graphic supports to negotiate disciplinary meanings orally and with print Student uses graphic representations to communicate content knowledge Student is able to comprehend and construct subject-verbobject sentence patterns when participating in disciplinary tasks Level 3: Developing • • Level 4: Expanding • • • • Level 5: Bridging • • • • Level 6: Reaching • • • • Student relies on oral interactions with peers and teachers, as well as gestures and graphic supports to negotiate disciplinary meanings orally and with print Student is able to comprehend and construct a greater variety of words and sentence patterns associated with a specific content area in extended oral and written discourse (e.g., longer noun groups, use of passive constructions, use of complex clauses) Student relies less on oral interactions and other kinds of supports to comprehend and produce more expert oral, written, and multimodal disciplinary texts Student uses extended oral and written discourse associated with specific genres to achieve more purposes when communicating with different audiences Student can comprehend and use more varied and complex grammatical patterns associated with disciplinary discourse Student is able to comprehend and use a greater variety of discipline-specific words and phrases, including idiomatic expressions Student uses oral and written discourse in ways that approach grade-level proficiency Student is able to comprehend and produce organized, cohesive, and coherent extended texts using specific genre conventions to achieve specific disciplinary purposes when communicating with different audiences Student is able to comprehend and produce a greater variety of sentence lengths of varying linguistic complexity Student is able to comprehend and use specialized technical words and phrases and graphic representations in disciplinary ways that approach grade-level proficiency Student is able to comprehend and use oral and written discourse in grade-level ways for a variety of academic purposes and audiences Student is able to flexibly adjust to different registers to comprehend and produce organized, cohesive, and coherent extended texts using specific genre conventions to achieve specific disciplinary purposes when communicating with different audiences Student is able to comprehend and produce a variety of sentence lengths of varying linguistic complexity to relate information and ideas with precision for each content area Student is able to comprehend and use specialized technical words and phrases and graphic representations in grade-level, disciplinary ways 178 A Civil Rights Perspective Drawing on Vygotsky’s concept of the zone of proximal development, each level is determined by the degree to which learners rely on support from teachers and peers as they attempt to perform increasingly demanding oral and written tasks in school. As learners progress from Level 1 to Level 6, they are able to comprehend and produce longer, denser, and more technical genres in the target language with less and less assistance from teachers, peers, and family members and with less reliance on multimodal supports. For example, over time and with adequate supports, students at Level 1 progress from understanding and producing single words and phrases accompanied by gestures, facial expressions, and material objects to Level 6 where they are able to comprehend and produce extended texts that make meaning using more abstract terms and phrases associated with the study of science, math, social studies, and literature in English, Spanish, or both using discipline-specific registers. Said another way using concepts from SFL, as language learners progress from Level 1 to 6, they are able to read, write, and discuss a wider range of genres that construct disciplinary meanings through the use of registers that use: long noun phrases and embedded clauses to pack more information into individual clauses; a full range of the language’s tense system to manage time in different ways in extended texts; discipline-specific graphic elements such as equations, tables, and figures; and expected genre stages required to construct narratives, arguments, explanations, and other kinds of informational texts (see Chapters Three, Four, and Five). In regard to teaching practices that support this progression, the WIDA Consortium advocates that teachers scaffold students’ development of genre and register knowledge to help expand their discipline-specific literacy practices (Gibbons, 2015; Walqui, 2006; Walqui & van Lier, 2010). In line with the expanded TLC described in Chapter Four, this kind of scaffolding includes providing learners with: • • • • Model texts as a way of making genre and register expectations clear Opportunities to deconstruct and critically discuss the language choices more expert writers make in communicating for specific purposes and audiences (e.g., choices regarding text structure, sentence grammar, tone, vocabulary items, and use of graphics) Time to plan and co-construct similar texts in small groups and together as a whole class Targeted disciplinary language instruction and feedback from teachers as students work through the process of producing a well-edited final product. WIDA maintains that as students become more expert in using disciplinary literacies, the level of scaffolding they receive should drop away. New disciplinary literacy goals can then be established carefully and explicitly along a continuum that gradually expands rather than replaces students’ multilingual/ multimodal resources as they are guided in reaching higher and higher levels of A Civil Rights Perspective 179 disciplinary literacy proficiency required for academic success in each content area. Therefore, as learners progress from Level 1 to Level 6, they incrementally rely less and less on model texts, direct instruction, and feedback regarding the use of register features and genre conventions. Thus, Level 6, labeled “reaching,” describes the language proficiency of students who no longer need specialized instruction as mandated by civil rights legislation and court rulings because students can “use a range of grade-appropriate oral or written language for a variety of academic purposes and audiences” in each content area (WIDA, 2012, p. 9). Responses to WIDA Assessment specialists, literacy scholars, teacher educators, and teachers have reacted to WIDA in both positive and negative ways. In regard to the benefits of WIDA’s efforts, a review of recent scholarship suggests four major contributions. First, assessment specialists such as Bailey and Huang (2011) note that before WIDA first developed English language development standards in 2004, there were no standards with “anything close to this notion of language fused with academic content” (p. 345). Therefore, one of WIDA’s most significant contributions is K-12 standards with an “exclusive focus on language used in the school context . . . [that] reflect the reality of the kinds of language teachers should reasonably be held most responsible for developing—the language necessary for school success” (pp. 358–359). However, like other assessment experts, Bailey and Huang (2011) note that the WIDA standards are not based on empirical evidence. This critique highlights the longstanding difficulties of defining progress criteria and performance targets for such a diverse, highly mobile population of students who attend different local schools, in different districts, and in different states, which, collectively, result in incomparable levels of institutional support for high-quality ESL and bilingual education (Cook, Linquanti, Chinen, & Jung, 2012). A second contribution WIDA has made to the field of ESL and bilingual education is the consortium’s explicit recognition that the goal of language instruction is not to replace students’ home, peer, and community literacy practices by attempting to produce monolingual speakers of imagined national varieties of English or Spanish. In other words, WIDA’s English and Spanish language development standards are not overly specified, nor are the six levels of proficiency fixed to the goal of “native” language proficiency given the impossibility of defining, let alone measuring, such a diverse, always expanding, and ever-shifting meaning-making system. This under-specification may help counter problems that arise when assessments too tightly define discrete linguistic outcomes associated with the ideologically loaded conceptions of a native speaker (Mahboob & Barratt, 2014). For example, language educators have noted that the societal imagination of a “native English speaker” is often used to mandate prestige varieties of standardized American or British English spoken 180 A Civil Rights Perspective by White, middle and upper class speakers versus regional or ethnic varieties of Englishes used in the United States, England, and around the world. To avoid this pitfall, the WIDA Spanish language development standards do not privilege Castilian varieties of Spanish used in Spain over other varieties of Spanish used in Latin America and elsewhere. Instead, WIDA attempts to define and measure the disciplinary literacy practices teachers need to teach and students need to learn in English, Spanish, or both in grades K-12 to be successful in math, science, history, and language arts. A third way WIDA has contributed is that it conceptualizes disciplinary literacy development as much more than learning new vocabulary words (Uccelli, Galloway, Barr, Meneses, & Dobbs, 2015). For example, WIDA’s 2012 standards focus teachers’ attention on expanding students’ abilities to make sense of increasingly dense grammatical structures, and increasingly specialized ways of rhetorically organizing extended discourse in different content areas. This shift is important to note because pedagogical interventions designed to expand students’ vocabulary knowledge, while productive, have not demonstrated significant gains in students’ abilities to comprehend, produce, and critically analyze extended disciplinary texts. In making this assertion, Uccelli and her colleagues write: Many vocabulary-focused interventions have evidenced significant growth in vocabulary knowledge, yet only modest gains in reading comprehension . . . The discrepancy between developmental and intervention studies may not be surprising if we understand measures of vocabulary knowledge in developmental studies as indicators of the wider set of language skills (i.e., skill in packing dense information, connecting ideas, organizing discourse), which individuals develop in synchrony as they use language for real purposes. Among many plausible explanations for the less than satisfactory results of vocabulary-focused interventions, one possibility is that an exclusive focus on vocabulary might fail to target additional academic language skills that are also critical for text comprehension. (Uccelli et al., 2015, p. 340) Fourth, WIDA is not just in the business of testing, although many educators unfamiliar with the breadth of the consortium’s work equate WIDA with the assessments it has developed in collaboration with the Center for Applied Linguistics (e.g., ACCESS for ELLs) and the high costs of administering these assessments. However, counter to this critique, a part of WIDA’s mission is to research the nature of disciplinary literacy teaching, learning, and assessment and to provide professional development to teams of ESL and bilingual specialists, grade-level and content-area teachers, and administrators and policymakers in the context of high-stakes school reforms (Molle, 2013a, 2013b). As other chapters in this book make clear, these efforts are noteworthy because most educators working with ELLs do not have: A Civil Rights Perspective • • • • • • 181 Sustained access to expertise Time for robust professional development collaborations Time to produce and field test curriculum, instruction, and assessments A streamlined way to disseminate learning outcomes to students, parents, teachers, and other stakeholders The infrastructure needed to reflect on and research the impact of curricular interventions on student learning The capacity to respond strategically to rapid policy shifts at the state or federal levels. WIDA attempts to provide consortium members with institutional supports to develop their capacity in these critical areas through professional development workshops and research regarding the impact of these efforts. For example, Daniella Molle, a researcher associated with the consortium through the University of Wisconsin’s Center for Educational Research, has conducted several studies that explore how classroom teachers, district administrators, and state policymakers make sense of WIDA standards and professional development opportunities. In one study, Molle (2013a) describes how a five-month course taken by educators from 30 school districts supported these educators in engaging in difficult conversations regarding: (1) the role poverty plays in ELLs’ schooling experiences; (2) the value of bilingual education; (3) the level of disciplinary literacy expectations ESL and content area teachers should have for ELLs; and (4) the degree to which both ESL and content area teachers should be held accountable for student learning outcomes. In a second study, Molle and Reveles (2013) analyze the experiences of teachers, administrators, and WIDA coaches over the course of a six-month professional development workshop. They write that the reaction to the professional development initiative was mostly positive. They base their findings on an analysis of states’ professional development plans, interviews with teachers and administrators regarding their experiences in WIDA workshops, and interviews with WIDA coaches regarding their approach to supporting participants in implementing WIDA standards. Molle and Reveles found that at the end of the course, several states’ professional development plans had “enhanced cohesion,” “deepened” the content of professional development efforts to have a “wider reach,” and made more direct connections to “practice” (2013, p. 2). For example, several states expanded the audience for professional development to include not only ESL and bilingual specialists, but also general educators and content specialists. Molle and Reveles considered this shift a positive one because of its potential to foster a sense of collective “responsibility for the teaching of ELLs among all staff: a factor that has been described as essential for the academic success of language learners” (2013, p. 3). Despite these positive reactions, other studies are critical of WIDA’s efforts, especially in the context of inadequate local, state, and federal support for 182 A Civil Rights Perspective teachers’ professional development. A chief critique is that educators’ use of WIDA standards and professional development resources can vary dramatically within and across districts; therefore, the noted benefits of the WIDA approach are not generalizable. Molle (2013b) found this to be the case in her study of how 39 educators from 14 school districts in Georgia, Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin used the WIDA standards to design performance indicators for ELLs.2 She attributes the variation differences in how ESL administrators in different local contexts define their roles and the roles of ESL teachers and how districts and states avail themselves of consortium resources (e.g., professional development workshops, publications, online resources). Molle concludes that all educators require opportunities for collaborative and meaningful professional development anchored to an analysis of students’ literacy development if schools are to support all teachers in becoming disciplinary literacy specialists and that these opportunities must be sustained over several years. She writes: Teachers need to be able to take time away from the classroom and design units that support ELL students’ language development. This time can take place during the school year or in the summer and involve multiple ways of developing expertise, but it has to exist. Furthermore, the professional development opportunities available to ESL teachers need to span several years. Many educators commented on the ways in which their understanding of the [WIDA] standards has evolved over the years. ESL teachers reported greatly valuing professional development that is collaborative and includes teams of general education teachers, ESL teachers, and administrators. Finally, ESL educators find professional development most meaningful when it supports them in working with the WIDA standards to design language instruction and assessment. (Molle, 2013b, p. 12) In another study focusing on the implementation of WIDA standards in one school, Ruslana Westerlund (2014) found similar results. Westerlund, also associated with the WIDA Consortium, analyzed the experiences of teachers, an academic coordinator, and the executive director of an urban elementary charter school as they attempted to implement WIDA’s English language development standards. This school enrolled approximately 250 students, nearly all of whom identified as Latinx, were designated as ELLs, and were eligible for a free or reduced lunch. Westerlund makes three claims based on her analysis of semistructured interviews, videos of co-planned and co-taught lessons, and school documents (e.g., meeting agendas, curricular materials, and student achievement data). First, Westerlund reports that participants tended to find the WIDA standards too “vague, confusing . . . [and] abstract” (2014, p. 118). For example, one teacher described the standards as providing a “big picture” and a broadly defined “end goal,” but not much “direction in how to get there” (p. 82). This teacher A Civil Rights Perspective 183 added that she understood that it was the teachers’ responsibility to develop their own specific performance indicators and curricular materials for their students, but that these tasks were very “time consuming” (p. 83). Relatedly, Westerlund found that teachers did not always appreciate the open and generative nature of the WIDA standards. Rather, they found the responsibility for creating their own performance indicators to be not only time-consuming, but also contradictory to their understanding of standards as a set of detailed benchmarks. Second, teachers found many of the WIDA resources helpful, especially a tool called the “Can Do Descriptors” for grade-level clusters and the “Name Chart” for keeping track of individual students’ literacy development. However, learning how to use these WIDA resources to design content-based tasks and differentiate instruction for different levels of proficiency was something only experienced ESL teachers seemed to be able to do. Westerlund reports that other teachers needed much more time and assistance in developing an understanding of the connection between disciplinary literacy development and content knowledge development to be able to design quality learning activities and aligned formative assessments. Echoing Molle’s (2013b) findings, Westerlund (2014) maintains that policymakers should anticipate that teachers will need sustained professional development opportunities to develop a conceptual understanding of the WIDA framework. She adds teachers will need support in the form of time, funding, and access to expertise if they are to work collaboratively on designing locally responsive curricular units, analyzing students’ disciplinary literacy gains, and using their collective insights to develop the capacity of their schools to meet the needs of multilingual students. Westerlund suggests that the process of building a school’s capacity to implement the WIDA standards cannot be underestimated given that language specialists typically do not have content knowledge and general educators typically lack an awareness of how language constructs disciplinary knowledge. Westerlund’s third finding relates to the institutional character of the charter school where she conducted her investigation. She notes that the culture of this school was conducive to teacher learning because administrators did not force teachers into a defensive stance regarding their ability to translate WIDA’s complex framework into practice too quickly. Rather, over several years, the administration provided teachers with access to WIDA professional development opportunities as well as opportunities to attend state and national conferences. Teachers also had time to co-plan, co-teach, and consult with highly knowledgeable ESL teachers rather than work in the kind of isolation and endemic insecurity that often constrains teacher professionalism and works against teachers taking shared responsibility for student learning (e.g., Lortie, 1975). Other critiques of WIDA focus on the use of standardized language proficiency exams such as the ACCESS for ELLs in the context of high-stakes testing practices (see Chapter Seven). Menken, Hudson, and Leung (2014) note how little evidence there is of the validity of many newly developed language proficiency 184 A Civil Rights Perspective exams. For example, they describe how some ELLs are able to pass statemandated exams in English language arts and math for the general population, but still do not score at commensurate proficiency levels on exams developed by WIDA or similar assessments used in New York, California, and internationally. Therefore, Menken and her colleagues argue that the use of these assessments can lead to inappropriate placements and unfair penalties for students, teachers, and schools (e.g., the inability of students to graduate, threats to teachers’ job security, state takeovers of low-performing schools). Other scholars describe how WIDA’s efforts ironically make it more difficult for some communities to design bilingual programs responsive to different local needs (Davis & Phyak, 2015). For example, Davis and Phyak describe the efforts of a grass-roots coalition of parents, teachers, and literacy researchers as they attempted to get support for a greater variety of bilingual programs for K-12 students in Hawaii. The coalition’s efforts centered on improving the education of multilingual learners, particularly working-class speakers of Pacific Islander and Filipino languages as opposed to more privileged official varieties of Hawaiian. The authors argue that the state relied on “for-profit” WIDA workshops, which, while “scientifically based,” still failed to support teachers in designing equitable bilingual programs for a broader range of languages, thus failing to address the language rights of local students (Davis & Phyak, 2015, p. 155). In sum, a review of WIDA’s efforts to support teachers in meeting the civil rights of linguistically diverse students has been mixed. To its credit, WIDA is explicitly dedicated to a multilingual and multicultural agenda that is geared toward supporting students in expanding, not replacing, their ability to communicate in their home language, English, and/or Spanish for a wide range of disciplinary purposes. It has also put forth an explicitly social semiotic perspective of language and learning to support teachers in designing and implementing more robust content-based instruction for learners who come to school at different ages, with very different levels of language proficiency, and different levels of content knowledge. In addition, WIDA has attempted to provide professional development for ESL and bilingual specialists, general educators and content specialists, and local- and state-level administrators within a policy context that tends to ignore the complexities of teaching and learning in today’s schools. Moreover, unlike other testing systems, WIDA has created assessments in both English and Spanish that can guide schools in reflecting on their ability to meet the disciplinary literacy needs of English learners, Spanish learners, and students in bilingual programs learning both languages. Furthermore, WIDA’s record is noteworthy given that it operates in a U.S. policy context that is driven by market forces and has never valued multilingualism, nor supported robust forms of teacher professional development (see Chapter Seven). Therefore, it is not surprising that WIDA’s efforts have been met with resistance because they are both ambitious and technical in ways that do not match traditional approaches to teacher education (e.g., Lortie, 1975). In this A Civil Rights Perspective 185 respect, WIDA has attempted to engage the standardization and accountability movement as a way of mitigating the harm it can do to students and teachers. This perspective of WIDA is captured astutely by Roberta Frederick, a wellrespected ESL teacher with over 25 years of experience working in high-poverty schools. Roberta graduated with a master’s degree in education from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and has a license to teach ESL. She has worked in urban districts as an ESL teacher, a program director, teacher educator, and advocate for students, especially in the area of arts education. Consequently, she can speak with authority about how waves of educational reforms, including the adoption of WIDA standards, have shaped the nature of her work with students, colleagues, and administrators. She states: WIDA really ratchets up the demands on students and teachers in both good and bad ways . . . WIDA requires a lot of hard work to understand— and even more work to implement—because it is not just a list of discrete standards or a test given at the end of the year . . . it is also a conceptual framework that focuses on language and teaching in new ways—it’s really a sophisticated teaching methodology and a philosophy that requires teachers to dig deep and learn how to design curriculum and instruction in new ways, and schools are not really ready for that . . . We [my district] can’t stick with anything long enough . . . There is constant administrative turnover and teacher turnover . . . so just when we start to dig in to something like WIDA and get moving in a good direction, it all changes . . . New administrators come in and they have all new priorities and good work gets dropped. That is what has happened with WIDA in my district . . . groups of us participated in really good PD and got invested, and then it got dropped. So, right now, most teachers think WIDA is just one more exam they have to give in the spring that gives results in the following January on students they probably don’t even teach anymore. (R. Frederick, personal communication, February 18, 2017) Roberta’s reactions to WIDA suggest that while the standards, assessments, and professional development opportunities may be well conceived at a national level, their implementation at the school level is highly sensitive to the district context in which they are enacted. As Chapter Eight will make clear, the historical, political, and economic context of public schooling has also worked against multilingualism as a desired societal goal. Forces in these broader contexts have also worked against critical approaches to designing curriculum and instruction for non-dominant students, and robust forms of teacher professional development (e.g., Popkewitz, 1994). Consequently, as Roberta’s words make clear, educators working at the local classroom level need much more sustained forms of professional development anchored in a much better understanding of the educational needs of the students they serve. 186 A Civil Rights Perspective Summary This chapter opened with the voice of an experienced seventh grade social studies teacher named “Mrs. Ward” who said with some pride, “I’m never sure who is and who isn’t an ELL in my class. I just treat them all the same.” At the time Mrs. Ward made this comment, she had been teaching for almost 15 years in a struggling urban middle school serving mostly poor Latino and African American students. She also reported that she had not participated in any sustained professional development opportunities regarding working with ELLs and former ELLs, a demographic that was rapidly growing in her school. As this chapter makes clear, Mrs. Ward’s perspective, however well intended, is misguided and in violation of students’ rights to a free and equitable public education (e.g., de Jong, 2011). Specifically, in 1974, the Supreme Court ruled that “same does not imply equal” and that language learners require specialized instruction to enable them to engage meaningfully with the curriculum offered by public schools. Since 1974, as part of implementing what became known as the Lau Remedies, schools have institutionalized a range of language learning programs in response to this landmark court case. These programs range from those designed to support full disciplinary biliteracy and global multiculturalism (e.g., dual and maintenance bilingual education programs) to other approaches geared toward English-only and assimilationist ideologies (de Jong, 2011). Despite the development of policies and programs responsive to the civil rights of linguistically diverse students since the 1970s, research indicates that disparities between dominant, White, middle and upper middle class students and non-dominant students of color who speak world languages and varieties of English have persisted and intensified (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 2006). As a result, the U.S. Department of Justice has mandated that teachers in some states must complete coursework focusing on teaching disciplinary literacies to students officially designated as ELLs. In addition, most states have adopted new English language development standards and assessments as part of the standardization and accountability movement shaping nearly all aspects of U.S. public schooling, as will be discussed further in the next chapter. An organization that has emerged as a leader in designing standards and assessments for English learners, Spanish learners, and Spanish-English bilingual learners is the WIDA Consortium. Founded in 2002 in response to NLCB and CCSS, WIDA’s mission is to advance the academic achievement of linguistically and culturally diverse learners through the development of standards, assessments, research, and professional learning opportunities for educators. WIDA draws on diverse theoretical perspectives of literacy development, including Halliday’s SFL and Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development to help language specialists, general educators, administrators, and teacher educators respond to new waves of educational reforms. However, as the closing words of Roberta Frederick make clear, teachers need time and sustained A Civil Rights Perspective 187 professional development to understand and implement successful approaches to teaching disciplinary literacy practices to a changing population of multilingual students attending U.S. public schools. Praxis ELLs’ Civil Rights and Institutional Supports for Developing Disciplinary Literacies As part of responding to Roberta Fredrick’s call for teachers to “dig deep,” the following data collection activities provide an opportunity for your group to analyze how ELLs students’ civil rights are protected in the institutional contexts where you are collecting and analyzing data. The following tasks will guide you in comparing the educational experiences of an ELL student in a local ESL or bilingual program and in a general education class, depending on the nature of the types of language programs offered locally (e.g., dual, maintenance, or transitional bilingual education; push-in or pull-out ESL instruction; sheltered English immersion). If you have the opportunity to follow a specific student in different kinds of classrooms, that would be ideal. If not, then make plans to observe an ESL or bilingual classroom and a general education class as a way of describing and comparing the opportunities and challenges ELLs confront in these different classroom contexts. The following guidelines will help you make this comparison and inform the development of the curricular unit you are designing. Task Directions and Topics for Discussion 1. 2. 3. 4. Schedule observations of either a single ELL who participates in both ESL/ bilingual and general education programming or of one ESL/bilingual class and one general education class. Keep in mind the ethics of conducting classroom research (e.g., protecting teacher and student confidentiality by using pseudonyms, being conscious of the many demands placed on teachers, being open-minded and avoiding making hard and fast conclusions based on a very limited window on the range of literacy experiences students have in and out of school). Review Chapter Two as an example of Celine’s challenges in navigating the transition between an ESL program and general education classes. Review your group’s description of the state, school, classroom, and community context from Chapter Two and your transcript analysis from Chapter Three. Use Table 6.A to take notes that will guide your analysis of how ELLs in your context are provided with access and support for learning how to read, write, and discuss disciplinary texts in accordance with all students’ right to a free and equitable education. TABLE 6.A Comparing Classroom Supports for ELLs’ Disciplinary Literacy Development Within an Institutional Context Bilingual/ESL/ SEI Classes Description of the class (type, size, physical layout) Access to resources (e.g., technology, quality curricular materials) Student grouping practices (pairs, small groups, whole class) Content focus Language focus Equity issues Use of students’ home language(s) Use of multimodal resources (e.g., diagrams, images, videos, hands-on tasks) Nature of classroom participation structures and discourse patterns that support disciplinary knowledge and literacy development (see Chapter Three) Use of model texts (see Chapter Three) Support for disciplinary reading (e.g., text deconstruction activities, see Chapters Four and Five) Support for disciplinary writing (e.g., text construction activities, see Chapters Four and Five) If possible, collect samples of student writing. Use Table 6.2 to determine the WIDA level of selected student(s). Feedback and assessment practices Informal interview with teachers about their work and professional development opportunities in relation to supporting ELLs’ disciplinary literacy development (if possible) Informal interview with students about their learning (if possible) Other topics of interest General Education Implications Content Classes for Designing Curriculum A Civil Rights Perspective 5. 189 After completing your observations and comparison, discuss at least five insights that arise from your completion of Table 6.A that will inform how you will further develop the curricular unit you are preparing using the expanded TLC (e.g., being more specific in regard to content, language, equity goals; making greater connections between your curricular unit and students’ lives; providing students with more access and opportunities to use their home language; selecting higher quality and more authentic model texts; designing scaffolding handouts to make disciplinary literacy practices more explicit and open to discussion; developing feedback and assessment systems that are more motivating and supportive of disciplinary literacy development; see Chapters Four and Five). Notes 1 As of 2015, states not belonging to the consortium include Arizona, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, New York, and Texas. These states have developed their own assessment systems as a way of complying with NCLB legislation (Bailey & Carroll, 2015). 2 WIDA performance indicators are interpretations of the standards written by teachers and test developers to “show examples of how language is processed or produced within a particular context . . . [they] are meant to be examples and not fixed guidelines of the language with which students may engage during instruction and assessment” (WIDA, 2012, p. 10). References Bailey, A., & Carroll, P. (2015). Assessment of English language learners in the era of new academic content standards. Review of Research in Education, 39(1), 253–294. Bailey, A. & Huang, B. (2011). Do current English language development/proficiency standards reflect the English needed for success in school? Language Testing, 28(3), 343–365. Berg, M.A. & Huang, J. (2015). Improving in-service teachers’ effectiveness: K-12 academic literacy for the linguistically diverse. Functional Linguistics, 2(5), 5–26. Brisk, M.E. (2006). Bilingual education: From compensatory to quality schooling (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Brisk, M.E., & Ossa Parra, M. (2018). Mainstream classrooms as engaging spaces for emergent bilinguals: SFL theory, catalyst for change. In R. Harman (Ed.), Bilingual learners and social equity (pp. 127–151). New York: Springer. Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new demography of America’s schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved from www.urban.org/research/publication/ new-demography-americas-schools/view/full_report Colombi, M.C. (2009). A systemic functional approach to teaching Spanish for heritage speakers in the United States. Linguistics and Education, 20(1), 39–49. de Cohen, C., & Clewell, B.C. (2007). Putting English language learners on the educational map: The No Child Left Behind Act implemented. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved from www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311468_ell.pdf 190 A Civil Rights Perspective Cook, G., Linquanti, R., Chinen, M., & Jung, H. (2012). National evaluation of Title III implementation supplemental report: Exploring approaches to setting English language proficiency performance criteria and monitoring English learner progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). No Child Left Behind and high school reform. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 642–667. Davis, K., & Phyak, P. (2015). In the face of neoliberal adversity: Engaging language education policy and practices. L2 Journal, 7(3), 146–166. de Jong, E. (2011). Foundations for multilingualism in education: From principles to practice. Philadelphia: Caslon. Derewianka, B.M. & Jones, P. (2016). Teaching language in context (2nd ed.). South Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press. Echevarria, J., Vogt, M.E., & Short, D. (2007). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Allyn & Bacon. Gándara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English language learners: A survey of California teachers’ challenges, experiences, and professional development needs. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. Gebhard, M. (2004). Fast capitalism, school reform, and second language literacy practices. Modern Language Journal, 88(2), 245–265. Gebhard, M., Chen, I., Graham, H., & Gunawan, W. (2013). Teaching to mean, writing to mean: SFL, L2 literacy, and teacher education. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(2), 107–124. Gibbons P. (2015). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching English language learning in the mainstream classroom (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Gottlieb, M. & Ernst-Slavit, G. (2014). Academic language in diverse classrooms: Definitions and contexts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Gutiérrez, K., Larson, J., & Kreuter, B. (1995). Cultural tensions in the scripted classroom: The value of the subjugated perspective. Urban Education, 29(4), 410–422. Harklau, L. (1994). ESL and mainstream classes: Contrasting second language learning contexts. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 241–272. Harklau, L. (2000). From the “good kids” to the “worst”: Representations of English language learners across educational settings. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 35–67. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman. Lopez, F., & McEneaney, E. (2012). State implementation of language acquisition policies and reading achievement among Hispanic students. Educational Policy 26(3), 418–464. Lortie, D. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lucas, T. (Ed.). (2011). Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators. New York: Routledge. McLaughlin, M., Glaab, L., & Hilliger Carrasco, I. (2014). Implementing Common Core state standards in California: A report from the field. Stanford, CA: Policy Analysis for California. Retrieved from http://edpolicyinca.org/sites/default/files/PACE%20CCSS%20 McLaughlin.pdf Menken, K., Hudson, T., & Leung, C. (2014). Symposium: Language assessment in standards-based education reform. TESOL Quarterly, 48(3), 586–614. Mahboob, A., & Barratt, L. (Eds.). (2014). Englishes in multilingual contexts: Language variation and education. London: Springer. Molle, D. (2013a). Facilitating professional development for teachers of English language learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 197–207. A Civil Rights Perspective 191 Molle, D. (2013b). Implementation of the English language proficiency standards across the WIDA Consortium (WIDA Research Report). Madison, WI: WIDA Consortium. Molle, D. & Reveles, C. (2013). Collaborating with states on professional development planning (WCER Working Paper 2013–2). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved from: www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/papers.php National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2004). Issue brief: English language learner students in U.S. public schools: 1994 and 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ pubs2004/2004035.pdf National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2008). Status and trends in the education of American Indians and Alaska Natives: 2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/ nativetrends/tables/table_5_4b.asp National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2013). Table 203.50: Enrollment and percentage distribution of enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by race/ethnicity and region: Selected years, fall 1995 through fall 2023. Digest of Educational Statistics, 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/ dt13_203.50.asp New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92. Nieto, S. & Bode, P. (2018). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (7th ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson. NCLB. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 115, Stat 1961 (2002). Nwosu, C., Batalova, J., & Auclair, G. (2014). Frequently requested statistics on immigrants and immigration in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-andimmigration-united-states-3 Ortmeier-Hooper, C. (2012). The ELL writer: Moving beyond basics in the secondary classroom. New York: Teachers College Press. Popkewitz, T.S. (1994). Professionalization in teaching and teacher education: Some notes on its history, ideology, and potential. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(1), 1–14. Ramsey, A., & O’Day, J. (2010). ESEA evaluation brief: The English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/title-iii/state-ofstates.pdf Roblero, B. (2013). The importance of preparing teachers to educate vulnerable populations. Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy, 25, 97–115. Thomas, W.P., & Colliers, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence. Turkan, S., de Oliveira, L.C., Lee, O., & Phelps, G. (2014). Proposing a knowledge base for teaching academic content to English language learners: Disciplinary linguistic knowledge. Teachers College Record, 116(4), 1–30. Uccelli, P., Galloway, E.P., Barr, C., Meneses, A., & Dobbs, C. (2015). Beyond vocabulary: Exploring cross-disciplinary academic language proficiency and its association with reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(3), 261–359. U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). Language use in the United States, 2011. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-22.pdf 192 A Civil Rights Perspective Valdés, G. (1995). The teaching of minority languages as academic subjects: Pedagogical and theoretical challenges. Modern Language Journal, 79(3), 299–328. Valdés, G., & Castellón, M. (2011). English language learners in American schools. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms (pp. 18–34). New York: Routledge. Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159–180. Walqui, A., & van Lier, L. (2010). Scaffolding the academic success of adolescent English language learners: A pedagogy of promise. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. Westerlund, R. (2014). Lost in translation: A descriptive cast study of a K-5 urban charter school implementing the WIDA ELD Standards (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Bethel University, St. Paul, MN. WIDA Consortium. (2012). 2012 Amplification of the English language development standards, kindergarten-grade 12. Madison, WI: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. Wright, W. E. (2015). Foundations for teaching English language learners: Research, theory, policy, and practice (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Caslon. 7 SHIFTING CONCEPTIONS OF EQUITY Standardization, Accountability, and Privatization in School Reform My principal routinely asks me to teach the kids who struggle a lot in school, something I love doing, and I’m invited to give presentations all the time on how I support all kinds of students in reading, writing, and meeting standards, which is a good thing—I am not against standards. But according to the state, I am not a very good teacher because of my students’ test scores. All I have to say is REALLY? As if, I, all by myself, influenced everything a student knows and does not know on the day they take a test . . . And now they want to link test scores to teacher evaluations. What a slap in the face! – “Hanna Godley,” middle school English language arts teacher in Massachusetts Thankfully I only had to submit edTPA1 once because it cost about $300 . . . It requires a lot of planning, organization, time, and hard work. And there are parts of edTPA that can be faked and people who are strong writers have an advantage because of the amount of reflecting and explaining that is required. But overall, it made me analyze the different components of a strong unit and lesson and critique myself using video and pre- and post-assessments of students’ learning. It also really made me analyze my language choices, something I had never done before. – “Christina Tucci,” reading specialist in New York I just scheduled my first of two MTEL exams.2 It was about $150 on top of what I paid for TK20.3 And that is on top of tuition and books and rent, so I had to put TK20 on my credit card because I couldn’t use my debit card. I feel like I have put a lot of money in a hole—I just hope it grows into something! I know a lot of people complain about [TK20] because the system isn’t very intuitive, but it does give me a sense of what I am supposed to aim for, what the end goal is, so I’m optimistic. – “Diane Delvin,” pre-service secondary English language arts teacher in Massachusetts 194 Shifting Conceptions of Equity The voices of these pre- and in-service teachers reveal how new waves of school reforms associated with the standardization and accountability movement are fundamentally changing the nature of public education in ways that hold promise, but are also precarious. To explore the complexities of this new era of educational reform, the questions guiding this chapter are: • • • What is the standardization and accountability movement and how did this approach to systemic school change come into being? What are the implications of the standardization and accountability movement for the teaching and learning of disciplinary literacies, especially for ELLs and their teachers? How can educators develop a deeper understanding of how the standardization and accountability movement shapes ELLs’ classroom experiences so teachers can protect students’ right to an equitable education? Building on the discussion of ELLs’ civil rights in Chapter Six, this chapter continues to focus on the institutional context of public education for ELLs and their teachers illustrated in Figure 7.1. This chapter begins by explaining how the standardization and accountability movement, which began in 2002 with the signing of No Child Left Behind legislation, continued to gain momentum with FIGURE 7.1 Text/context dynamics in schools (focus on genre and register) Shifting Conceptions of Equity 195 the adoption of the Common Core State Standards in 2010. In addition, this chapter describes how some states, in an effort to mandate a single standardized national language for classroom instruction, passed English-only policies, which further compromised teachers’ ability to support ELLs in meeting new standards through bilingual approaches to education. Next, this chapter describes how pre- and in-service teachers are being held accountable for meeting these new standards for all students, including ELLs, but often with fewer institutional resources and at great expense. And last, in the praxis section, readers are invited to explore the meaning of the standardization and accountability movement in the local context where they are collecting and analyzing data as a way of mitigating the unintended consequences of school reforms. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) NCLB is a comprehensive bipartisan act passed by Congress in 2002 that expanded the power of the federal government in unprecedented ways. For example, NCLB required states to test students annually in core academic subjects, including ELLs who had been enrolled in a U.S. school for at least one year. In addition, it required states to monitor students’ adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward meeting state standards. If students, including ELLs, failed to meet AYP targets, schools could be taken over by the state and/or forced to adopt scripted curriculum aligned with state standards and assessments (e.g., Gutiérrez, Asato, Santos, & Gotanda, 2002; Lucas, 2011). The high-stakes nature of NCLB signaled a strategy shift in how policymakers attempted to implement school change. Kathryn McDermott (2011) explains this shift in a comprehensive analysis of the development of school reforms leading up to NCLB. She argues that, prior to the passage of NCLB, the federal government attempted to achieve equity in education by providing additional funding to schools that served students in particular categories to ensure students’ civil rights were being protected. These funds were used to address discrimination based on race, gender, disability, and home language, and included programs for women’s athletics, students with disabilities, students with special needs, and those requiring bilingual/ESL services. For example, in line with this trend in civil rights legislation is the federal government’s passage of the Bilingual Education Act in 1968. This act provided funding for native language instruction, English instruction, cultural heritage programs, and teacher education (e.g., Wright, 2015). Under this system of categorical funding, accountability was narrowly defined as “following the money” to make sure districts complied with state and federal regulations and accounted for how funds were spent. However, schools were not held accountable for student learning outcomes. NCLB, guided by strategies used in the business world, changed this conception of equity by forcing states to focus on educational outcomes and then holding schools, and increasingly, individuals, accountable for meeting learning targets. If schools do 196 Shifting Conceptions of Equity not meet targets, they stand to lose funding, and teachers and administrators their jobs (e.g., McDermott, 2011). Advocates and critics of NCLB come from both ends of the political spectrum (e.g., McDermott, 2011). For example, many conservatives and progressives are supportive of NCLB’s goal of holding schools accountable for the educational outcomes of all students by providing all students with access to an academically challenging curriculum. This belief is based on studies that find students’ performance, including ELLs’, is enhanced when schools establish clear instructional goals, have high expectations for all students and teachers, and have strong leadership that focuses on curriculum and instruction (e.g., Lucas, 2011). However, many conservatives feel NCLB is too prescriptive and infringes too much on the rights of local school boards to determine the best approach to educating students in accordance with their beliefs and priorities (e.g., teaching evolution from a particular perspective, approaches to sex and gender education, the issue of school prayer, the topic of climate change). Progressives, on the other hand, argue that the law jeopardizes the very students it is intended to help by not addressing fundamental differences between schools in wealthy communities and those in poorer ones. They maintain that achievement in public schools has less to do with students’ abilities and more to do with their zip codes and the tax base of the communities in which they live. For example, more affluent communities, relative to poorer ones, are able to generate more funding for public education to provide students and teachers with access to cleaner and safer schools; better technologically equipped classrooms; and a broader array of academic and non-academic course offerings including art, music, dance, theater, physical education, sports, and after-school programs (e.g., Spring, 2014). Progressives tend to object to NCLB because it ushered in a business approach to school change that focused too narrowly on financial inputs and testing outcomes, while advancing the commodification, commercialization, and marketization of something as cognitively, socially, and politically complex as teaching and learning (e.g., Au, 2013). For example, many progressives point to the role market forces increasingly play in public education, particularly private companies that make profits by selling scripted teaching materials and assessment systems to budget-strapped schools that serve large numbers of poor students, especially ELLs. They argue against the use of these curricular materials and assessments for three main reasons: they typically are not designed for ELLs; they work to de-professionalize the workforce by taking curriculum and instruction decisions out of teachers’ and administrators’ hands; and they do not build the capacity of school districts in regard to supporting the professional development of teachers and administrators in locally responsive ways (e.g., McLaughlin, Glaab, & Hilliger Carrasco, 2014). In addition, high-stakes testing systems associated with NCLB may have undermined the policy’s ability to achieve its intended goal of holding schools accountable for closing the equity gap. Darling-Hammond (2006) maintains that Shifting Conceptions of Equity 197 such high-stakes testing systems perversely created counterincentives to supporting student achievement, along with a “diversity penalty” for high-poverty schools attended by large numbers of ELLs and other multilingual students of color (p. 659). She explains that because NCLB required the inappropriate testing of ELLs in English, a language they were still in the process of acquiring, “the most expedient option for schools to increase their scores [was] to allow or even encourage such students to leave” (p. 659). Therefore, although NCLB focused much needed attention on the failure of schools to support historically underserved students, such as ELLs, the law paradoxically created testing systems that pushed these very same students out of school in record numbers. FIGURE 7.2 Data wall depicting third graders’ scores from mandated state tests in an urban school 198 Shifting Conceptions of Equity In line with Darling-Hammond’s critique of NCLB, a number of researchers have documented how high-stakes testing systems can have negative effects on students’ motivation and engagement, given that both are likely to decrease when tasks are too challenging, instructional supports are too low, and failure is likely (e.g., Guthrie, Wigfield, & You, 2012). Teachers’ motivation, sense of efficacy, and desire to stay in the classroom follow in the same direction when they too are constructed as failures in staff meetings, local and national news outlets, and in district, state, and national reports (e.g., Olsen & Sexton, 2009). “Data walls” in schools are one example of how pernicious such public displays of failure can be. Figure 7.2 shows a data wall outside the doorway of a third grade class in an urban elementary school, where more than half of the students were designated as ELLs, almost all were of color, and nearly all were eligible for a free or reduced lunch (Gebhard, 2015). The display, titled “Third Grade is Racing to Proficiency,” represents each third-grader as a race car. These cars are arranged to show how each student performed on the state exam in English language arts. The irony, which was not lost on the children who walked by this display every day when they came to school, is that they were not racing anywhere. Rather, 35 out of 58 students’ cars were in the “warning/failing” category (scores of zero or one). Only six students scored at the more “advanced” level of four. It is unclear why school administrators required teachers to make public displays of failure or why anyone would think such displays could be motivating to students and teachers, but data walls like these are prevalent in U.S. schools. English-only Policies and Anti-bilingual Education Ideologies In addition to problems associated with testing ELLs in a language they are just beginning to learn, several policy analysts have convincingly argued that NCLB created a de facto English-only policy in U.S. public schools by systematically eliminating the words “bilingual” and “bilingual education” from policy documents at the federal level (e.g., Lucas, 2011). This push toward English-only instruction has been further reinforced by the passage of antibilingual education legislation in many of the states with the largest numbers of ELLs. However, such legislation flies in the face of compelling evidence that bilingual instruction supports better educational outcomes for multilingual students in an increasingly globalized world (e.g., Lopez & McEneaney, 2012; Thomas & Collier, 2002; see Chapter Six), and decades of empirical research that demonstrates bilingualism has social, cognitive, economic, and political benefits (e.g., Bialystok, 2001). This research indicates that people who have studied and use two or more languages in their daily and professional lives have a greater degree of cognitive and semiotic flexibility and outperform monolinguals on standardized tests and college entrance exams (e.g., Bamford & Mizokawa, 1991). Other research indicates that multiculturalism gives people Shifting Conceptions of Equity 199 a competitive advantage in the workforce, especially in jobs related to healthcare, education, social service, customer service, marketing, international trade, and international news media (e.g., Callahan & Gándara, 2014). However, the benefits of multilingualism are not just about important practical matters such as getting an education and a job. Kramsch (2009) maintains that learning new linguistic and cultural codes in and out of school is also about strategically and creatively constructing new identities and new ways of understanding oneself and others, sometimes playfully and sometimes painfully. Kramsch describes this process as “especially necessary in situations where power, status, and speaking rights are unequally distributed and where pride, honor, and face are as important as information” (2006, p. 250). She adds that language learners are not just imitating the linguistic forms of “native speakers,” nor are they simply solving problems when communication breaks down by applying new communication strategies. More accurately, language learners have “embodied” past experiences, identities, loyalties, and desires that shape their sociolinguistic interactions with others across diverse contexts (p. 251). This perspective of language learning is captured in Chapter Two’s portrait of Celine’s language learning experiences in high school. Celine’s ability to produce an academic text in her high school journalism class was not simply a matter of linguistic proficiency or knowing how to make the “correct” linguistic choices for a class assignment. Rather, her editorial about institutional racism was also an act of identity. It was an attempt to use language to understand herself as a multilingual student of color attending a U.S. high school, as well as an attempt to have others engage with her perspective. Kramsch captures this aspect of language education when she writes: To understand others, we have to understand what they remember from the past, what they imagine and project onto the future, and how they position themselves in the present. And we have to understand the same things of ourselves . . . Today it is not sufficient for learners to know how to communicate meanings; they have to understand the practice of meaning making itself. (2006, p. 251) Unfortunately, these cultural and emotional aspects of language teaching and learning are typically ignored by policymakers, teacher educators, and teachers despite the documented experiences of students and teachers who wrestle with linguistic and cultural differences in their daily interactions with one another in schools. In other words, rather than responding to the complex and powerful social, political, and economic forces influencing schooling in ways that might productively help teachers draw on and develop all students’ linguistic and cultural resources to facilitate disciplinary literacy development and cross-cultural understanding, school reforms in the United States have aggressively pursued nationalistic, monolingual, English-only policies since the passage of NCLB (e.g., Flores & Schissel, 2014; Menken, 2008). 200 Shifting Conceptions of Equity Gándara and Baca (2008, p. 2001) characterize these policies as creating a “perfect storm” of negative consequences for ELLs and their teachers. They describe how federal mandates, such as those outlined in NCLB, have forced ELLs to take the same high-stakes exams as their non-ELL counterparts regardless of the fact that these exams were not designed for language learners. Therefore, they argue, these assessments are not valid measures of ELLs’ knowledge of content-area standards, but function more as advanced language proficiency exams that beginning and intermediate language learners will likely fail. Nonetheless, ELLs’ scores on these exams are included in reports of schools’ progress toward meeting accountability targets in ways that are highly consequential for students, teachers, schools, school districts, and local communities. For example, many states will not allow students to graduate if they have not passed state exams. Teachers and principals can lose their jobs if their school’s scores do not show improvement and school districts can lose funding or be placed in receivership if they are declared chronically underperforming, regardless of the number of ELLs they serve (e.g., Menken, 2008). Given the correlation between ELLs and poverty, this means the poorest schools and communities, which have the greatest need for resources and stability, are often at the greatest risk of losing funding and having high faculty turnover rates compared to other schools. NCLB has also contributed to restrictions around the amount of time ELLs are eligible to receive support from ESL specialists (e.g., Hakuta, 2011). The intention of NCLB provisions on this matter may have been to ensure ELLs have greater access to content instruction and teachers who have disciplinary expertise, so the responsibility of their education could be shared by all of their teachers, not just a few ESL and bilingual specialists. This push toward shared responsibility for the education of ELLs is important because ESL and bilingual teachers have expertise in second language acquisition, bilingualism, and multiculturalism, but not always the requisite content knowledge to teach math, science, English language arts, and history, especially at the secondary level where content knowledge becomes more specialized and consequential (see Chapter Six). However, states have interpreted this aspect of NCLB differently. As a result, NCLB, in combination with English-only mandates, has pushed many ELLs into content classrooms before they are able to manage the demands of reading and writing disciplinary texts without careful scaffolding, especially in the upper grades where texts become denser, more technical, and require more disciplinespecific background knowledge (e.g., Gibbons, 2006; Walqui, 2006). Research suggests ELLs may need five to seven years of high-quality literacy instruction before they are able to read, write, and discuss disciplinary genres at levels that match their non-ELL peers, especially in the upper grades (e.g., Hakuta, 2011). Lawmakers, however, have ignored these findings in the same ways they have tended to ignore compelling data regarding the benefits of bilingualism. Kenji Hakuta, a professor and leading expert on bilingualism, captures the degree to which lawmakers have dismissed such research as he describes his experience Shifting Conceptions of Equity 201 testifying before a senate subcommittee tasked with shaping federal elementary and secondary education policies: “Tell me, professor, how long do you think it takes for [ELLs] to learn English?” My answer may have been an academically guarded one, to the effect that it depends on how you define proficiency in English and it would vary a lot depending on the child, but I gave my answer as 5 to 7 years, to which [Senator Claiborne Pell] replied, “Respectfully, professor, I disagree. It should take 6 months.” (2011, p. 167) Hakuta’s experience, like NCLB and English-only mandates, illustrates the power of monolingual ideologies shaping educational policies in the United States. Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the Disciplinary Literacy Development of All Students Statements by lawmakers such as Senator Pell put unrealistic pressure on content area teachers and their ELL students. However, the widespread adoption of CCSS and aligned assessments has intensified this pressure (Bunch, 2013; Lee, Quinn, & Valdés, 2013). The CCSS were developed by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers to build upon and align different states’ standards across grade levels and content areas. Their goal was to ensure consistent and rigorous expectations for all students in English language arts, history, science and technology, and mathematics regardless of where they live in the United States (Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 2010a). By 2014, the majority of states had adopted the CCSS. However, many states did so to access funding incentives from the Obama administration and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Otherwise, these states may have lost much needed funding (e.g., Spring, 2014). By the spring of 2015, millions of students in states such as New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts were tested on their knowledge of the CCSS using an aligned computer-based assessment developed by the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), while students in states such as California, Oregon, and Washington were tested using an assessment developed by the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). In addition, millions of students designated as ELLs took additional language assessments developed by the World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment Consortium (WIDA), which are also aligned with the CCSS (see Chapter Six). In many states, these national testing systems are slated to replace state systems. However, in many schools, national exams are layered on top of district and state exams. This proliferation of testing is evident in the experience of Grace Harris, a Massachusetts ESL teacher working in an urban 202 Shifting Conceptions of Equity high school, who noticed that in April and May of 2015 she lost 25 teaching days to testing her students in a language they were just beginning to learn. Ironically, all this time spent testing students on their knowledge of the standards prevented Grace from providing instruction to support students in meeting these very same standards. Experiences such as these are driving many educators to support “opt-out” campaigns. These campaigns are led by coalitions of parents, teachers, and teachers’ unions designed to push back on high-stakes testing practices and the intrusion of the federal government in local schooling practices. Representing both conservatives and progressives, the opt-out movement objects to: (1) the loss of local control in setting standards and assessing student learning; (2) the overtesting of students and loss of instructional time; (3) flawed evaluation systems for students, teachers, and schools; and (4) the generation of profits for private companies that develop assessment systems and instructional materials at taxpayers’ expense and to the detriment of schools being able to maintain art, music, dance, theater, world language, and sports programs (e.g., Spring, 2014). As of 2017, these campaigns have been successful in pressing for changes in the adoption and implementation of CCSS in Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Regardless of growing resistance from both sides of the political spectrum, most educators agree that the CCSS and accompanying assessments, for good or ill, constitute a dramatic shift in the direction of the national education system in the United States. Leading literacy researchers and teacher educators have characterized this shift in the following way: It is safe to say that across the entire history of American education, no single document will have played a more influential role over what is taught in our schools. The [Common Core] standards are already affecting what is published, mandated, and tested in schools—and also what is marginalized and neglected. Any educator who wants to play a role in shaping what happens in schools, therefore, needs a deep understanding of these standards. (Calkins, Ehrenworth, & Leheman, 2012, p. 1) However, to develop the kind of understanding Calkins and her colleagues are advocating, it is important to understand how and why the CCSS were developed, how they differ from other standards that have been generated over the last two decades, why states adopted them, and the implications for students, teachers, and teacher educators, particularly as they relate to disciplinary literacy development and ELLs. In the early 2000s, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) met to analyze the different ways states had responded to the demands of NCLB, especially the specific standards each state established for student learning at different grade levels and in different content areas. They also compared the different Shifting Conceptions of Equity 203 ways each state assessed student learning over time. Based on these analyses and a comparison with national standards established in other countries, the CCSSO developed the Common Core State Standards in 2010. Collectively, the developers of the CCSS attempted to achieve the following goals (CCSSO, 2010a): • • • • • • Establish national standards that are less fragmented, fewer in number, and more demanding than standards found in many states. Establish clear goals and a common language to support educators in designing curriculum and instruction focused on what high school graduates need to know and be able to do to be prepared for college, higher paying professional work, and civil engagement in a post-industrial and increasingly computer-mediated, multicultural, and globalized world. Establish standards for each grade level and content area that incrementally build to support all students in becoming college and career ready by graduation. Create system-wide shared responsibility for student learning and an understanding that development occurs over time. The developers of these standards attempted to achieve these two goals by articulating a developmental pathway for students across grade levels and content areas starting from an analysis of the demands of college preparatory classes in English language arts, history, the sciences, and mathematics and then working backwards, grade by grade, to stipulate specific academic standards for secondary and elementary grades, including kindergarten. The aim is that all K-12 teachers share the same goals for all students and work toward them incrementally and collaboratively across grades levels and content areas using more constructivist as opposed to behavioral approaches to teaching and learning (see Chapter Three).4 Support an integrated approach to teaching reading, writing, speaking, listening, numeracy, and uses of technology to develop students’ abilities to make sense of informational genres across grade levels and disciplines. Central to this focus is greater attention to supporting the disciplinary literacy development of students at each grade level and in each discipline. The writers of the CCSS maintain that an emphasis on informational texts is necessary because “most of the required reading in college and workforce training programs is informational in structure and challenging in content” (p. 4). Therefore, the standards mandate that “70 percent of student reading across the grades should be informational” (p. 5). Support all students in being able to manage increasingly complex texts across a range of disciplines, which includes developing the ability to read, write, and discuss narratives, explanations, and arguments in discipline-specific ways across grades K-12. Therefore, CCSS requires that all elementary and secondary teachers be able to teach students how to read, write, and critically discuss disciplinary genres specific to their content areas. To accomplish this, teachers need to attend to a “staircase” of language standards, which map literacy development from kindergarten to grade 12 to provide students with the linguistic 204 • • Shifting Conceptions of Equity scaffolding needed to prepare all students for futures in college and/or the workforce (p. 8). Use technology and computer-mediated ways of teaching to support students in negotiating the demands of an increasingly computer-mediated and postindustrial society, economy, and political world, especially given the steady loss of manufacturing jobs in most states. Emphasize the value of multiculturalism and productive collaboration across differences. The framers of the CCSS explicitly state that students should “actively seek to understand other perspectives and cultures through reading and listening, and . . . [be] able to communicate effectively with people of varied backgrounds. They [should be able to] evaluate other points of view critically and constructively” (p. 7). Reactions to CCSS The CCSS differ from state standards and aligned exams of the past, which focused on reading, writing, and mathematical skills separately. In contrast, the CCSS are conceptually more demanding. The CCSS redefine the nature of literacy and numeracy across content areas by requiring more attention be paid to reading and writing disciplinary genres. They make explicit reference to the value of multiculturalism and redefine the nature of teachers’ work in highly significant ways. The English language arts standards, for example, stipulate that students need to be able to “gather, comprehend, evaluate, synthesize, and report on information and ideas to conduct original research in order to answer questions or solve problems” (CCSSO, 2010a, p. 4); “integrate information from oral, visual, quantitative, and media sources; [and] evaluate what they hear, use media and visual displays strategically to help achieve communicative purposes” (p. 8). Similarly, the CCSS for mathematics call for greater focus, coherence, and rigor in curriculum as a way of ensuring students develop conceptual understanding of key concepts, speed and accuracy in calculation, and an ability to apply math in situations that require mathematical knowledge of algebra, functions, geometry, statistics, and probability through talk, print, and multimodal representation systems (CCSSO, 2010c). According to the CCSS, mathematically proficient students can apply the mathematics they know to solve problems arising in everyday life, society, and the workplace through the use of equations, graphs, computer tools, reading, and writing. For example, they “can explain correspondences between equations, verbal descriptions, tables, and graphs or draw diagrams of important features and relationships, graph data, and search for regularity or trends” (CCSSO, 2010d, p. 6). These types of discipline-specific literacies are also required by the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). These standards call for explicit attention to teaching the language of science and how scientific registers are used to communicate ideas, construct explanations, Shifting Conceptions of Equity 205 and frame arguments in ways that go beyond teaching vocabulary (e.g., Lee, Quinn, & Valdés, 2013; NGSS Lead States, 2013). As a number of scholars have remarked, the language of CCSS and NGSS means that conceptions of content area instruction must change. Math can no longer be conceived of and taught as a set of skills. Science and history cannot be conceived of and taught as a stable body of facts that students memorize. And English language arts cannot be conceived of as primarily the study of literature. In addition, teaching reading cannot be limited to instructing students in how to decode letters and sounds in the primary grades, nor can writing be understood as the process of producing grammatically correct sentences (e.g., Beach, 2011; Cobb & Jackson, 2011; Lee, Quinn, & Valdés, 2013). Rather, the CCSS and NGSS require that elementary and secondary teachers in all content areas know how to teach all students, not just those in academic tracks, how to read, write, and critically discuss the disciplinary genres they are routinely required to read and write in school as a way of developing students’ content knowledge and disciplinary literacies (e.g., de Oliveira & Iddings, 2014; see Chapters Four and Five). The CCSS also require that both elementary and secondary teachers develop the ability to critically apprentice all students to being able to use talk, print, and other meaning-making systems such as equations, graphs, maps, charts, diagrams, and computer-mediated tools to construct content knowledge specific to the grade levels they teach. This requirement means taking responsibility for ensuring all students, including ELLs and speakers of marginalized varieties of English, move along an academic pathway that prepares them to participate equally in a rapidly changing and increasingly multilingual, multicultural, and computermediated world. The CCSS state: ELLs bring with them many resources that enhance their education and can serve as resources for schools and society. Many ELLs have first language and literacy knowledge and skills that boost their acquisition of language and literacy in a second language; additionally, they bring an array of talents and cultural practices and perspectives that enrich our schools and society. Teachers must build on this enormous reservoir of talent and provide those students who need it with additional time and appropriate instructional support. (CCSSO, 2010b, p. 1) These requirements are highly significant for classroom practice. In contrast to previous waves of scripted curriculum and multiple-choice tests, the CCSS and NGSS demand that teachers prepare students “to demonstrate an understanding of core ideas, carry out research and inquiry related to real world tasks, collaborate in problem solving, and communicate their use and interpretation of evidence in clear, compelling ways” (McLaughlin et al., 2014, p. 1). Doing so will require that teachers begin to depart from traditional practices where they 206 Shifting Conceptions of Equity are positioned as “sage on the stage” and reward students for memorizing facts and phrases. In turn, school leaders will need to provide meaningful professional development to teachers while also engaging students’ families and members of the community in new ways. In sum, the CCSS represent a significant reconceptualization of student learning, teachers’ work, and administrative leadership in ways that focus squarely on disciplinary literacy development, especially for ELLs (e.g., de Oliveira & Iddings, 2014). The question for many is: how are these standards being implemented in classroom practice, especially given the fiscal problems facing many school districts, town governments, and states? Mike Kirst, a leading educational policy analyst, echoes this question. He writes, “It is much easier and cheaper to change state policy than to change what happens in classrooms. Human and organizational capacity building at the local level is expensive and difficult to carry out” (Kirst, 2013, p. 6). Kirst maintains that part of this expensive and difficult work is that teachers will need considerable professional development regarding the ways CCSS has reconceptualized disciplinary learning and literacies. Further, teacher education programs and professional standards for teacher evaluation will need to be renovated to align with CCSS. Thus, though Kirst lauds the reenvisioning of teaching and learning presented in the CCSS, he cautions against states simply adopting the standards without also laying significant groundwork for implementing them. Without major changes to traditional teaching practice, Kirst argues that students will not be well positioned to achieve the ambitious learning outcomes promised in the standards. To avoid this “cruel hoax,” especially in the context of high-stakes testing, teachers need an increased capacity to address disciplinary literacies and text complexity: Increased text challenge will not lead to increased capacity for students to deal with complexity without increased teacher scaffolding and knowledge of the nature of text and language and how to scaffold conversations around text in order to manage complexity. It is not at all clear to us how anything short of a major investment in the development of teacher knowledge about text at all levels and in all disciplines will allow that to happen. (Pearson & Hiebert, 2013, p. 25) Early analyses of the implementation of CCSS, however, indicate that this level of investment is not being made in schools, and ELLs and other multilingual students from poor families are suffering the consequences to a greater extent than other students. For example, Milbrey McLaughlin and her colleagues (2014) report negatively on early CCSS implementation efforts in California. These researchers interviewed teachers and administrators in diverse districts across the state, including rural and urban districts of different sizes in northern, central, and southern California, regions that serve dramatically different communities in regard to race, class, language, and political ideologies. All of the districts received Shifting Conceptions of Equity 207 state funds to support their transition to the CCSS and educators across districts were initially enthusiastic and willing to collaborate and share resources to a greater extent than in the past. However, there were clear differences between how the CCSS impacted affluent and poor communities, particularly those serving large numbers of ELLs. Wealthier districts tended to use these funds to send teachers to conferences, hire consultants, and purchase curricular materials. Poorer districts tended to use the funds to rebuild their basic infrastructure in the wake of past budget cuts that had deeply affected them. For example, schools in poorer communities used funds to hire back teachers let go during the previous recession so they could restore manageable class sizes. They also purchased technology and hired support staff to help to administer computer-based exams, resources more affluent schools already had. Further, districts that served large numbers of ELLs had legitimate concerns regarding how the demographics of their schools would impact their ability to meet the new standards. In regard to the issue of disciplinary literacy development and the CCSS, one interviewee remarked, “It is not just a big step, for many it is a pole vault . . . Academic language is a foreign language for many” (McLaughlin et al., 2014, p. 12). Important demographic differences between poor and affluent schools aside, McLaughlin and her colleagues underscore that all teachers and administrators they interviewed held deep concerns regarding the professional capacity of teachers to implement the CCSS. For example, they write that administrators worried that teachers who had themselves grown up taking NCLB era multiple-choice tests and listening to scripted curricula would not be able to make the shift to teaching concepts and the applications of concepts since they have been socialized to think of learning in terms of basic skills. One administrator described how skills-based curriculum packages that require teachers to follow “teacher proof lesson plans” would not work within a project-based and constructivist approach to teaching and learning advocated for by the CCSS (McLaughlin et al., 2014, p. 7). However, it is not just teachers who need professional development, but administrators, too. Most principals will never have taught to the CCSS or seen others do so, making it difficult for them to supervise teachers and act as instructional leaders. Yet district administrators interviewed by McLaughlin and her colleagues reported that colleges of education have been largely unresponsive to this need and slow to offer CCSS-aligned courses for pre- and in-service teachers. Based on this finding, the authors argue that “closer connections between teacher preparation programs and K-12 systems are necessary to address the current mismatch between what new teachers are prepared to do and the demands of CCSS implementation” (2014, p. 15). Another pressing problem these researchers identify is the lack of curricular materials aligned with the CCSS. In fact, one of the top concerns California teachers reported in this study was the lack of available teaching materials compatible with the new standards. Given teachers’ limited time and know-how 208 Shifting Conceptions of Equity for designing their own constructivist, project-based curricular units, the state adopted commercially made materials, but administrators complained that many of these materials were of dubious quality. In addition, one superintendent noticed that these new “CCSS-aligned” materials were not much different from previous versions and speculated that this was the result of publishers’ rush to land a large purchase order. This administrator’s suspicion is supported by a page-by-page comparison of old and new published textbooks, which revealed that publishers had done little more than “slap shiny new stickers on the same books they have been selling for years” (Herold & Molnar, 2014). California administrators expressed similar irritation with the aggressive marketing campaigns that flooded their inboxes, some receiving sales pitches every ten minutes to buy materials and attend workshops, often at their own expense. Based on these reports from teachers and administrators, McLaughlin and her colleagues recommend that a top priority moving forward should be sifting, sorting, and curating which of these resources is truly CCSS compatible. They conclude that “practitioners have neither the skills nor time to vet the avalanche of ‘resources’ coming their way from publishers, vendors and the broad range of workshop providers that jostle for their attention and dollars” (McLaughlin et al., 2014, p. 13). This jostling for dollars has provoked criticism of the CCSS from the right and the left. Critics question the cost of CCSS implementation and whether or not the research base informing the CCSS warrants this cost (e.g., Spring, 2014). In addition, they question the rapid shift of public funds into the pockets of forprofit companies in ways that have done little to build the institutional capacity of schools. For example, conservative groups like the Pioneer Institute and American Principles Project have estimated that CCSS implementation could cost nearly $16 billion over seven years (Rebarber, 2012). As a result, they have encouraged states to consider whether this level of spending is wise when states have other funding priorities and could use existing standards and assessments developed as part of NCLB. More liberal critics tend not to object to increases in public spending on education, but rather the way public funds are being spent on costly and questionable assessment systems rather than teachers’ professional development and quality programs for students. Au (2013) captures this critique: The development of the CCSS and the consequent rolling out of assessments, preparation materials, professional development, and other CCSSrelated infrastructure fits quite well with the neoliberal project of reframing public education around the logics of private businesses (Apple, 2006) as well as the shifting of public monies into the coffers of for-profit corporations through private contracts. (p. 5)5 Other critics want evidence that the CCSS will deliver given both the price tag of implementation and the likelihood of unintended consequences that Shifting Conceptions of Equity 209 accompany any comprehensive reform effort. As of yet, there are no longitudinal research studies that prove the economy will improve, poverty will be reduced, and the United States will be more competitive in the global market as a result of a reform agenda built on the CCSS (Spring, 2014). And some scholars question whether such a study could even be conducted. Following this line of reasoning, many ask why the CCSS have not been implemented more slowly and researched more deliberately through pilot programs that would provide resources in the form of time, opportunities to collaborate, and participation in evaluation programs (Karp, 2013). In sum, critics of CCSS point to a lack of pilot studies, inequitable funding formulas, the absence of meaningful professional development for teachers and administrators, and the use of profit-generating assessment systems that displace instructional time and funding for teachers’ professional development, the arts, athletic teams, community outreach, and after-school programs, even in better funded schools serving middle and upper-middle class families. Critics maintain that CCSS, like NCLB before it, will distract parents, teachers, administrators, teacher educators, educational researchers, and policymakers from the real causes of the so-called achievement gap—poverty and the inability of schools to grapple with issues of inequity related to race, class, and language (e.g., Kornhaber, Griffith, & Tyler, 2014). Standardization and Accountability in Teacher Evaluation Value-Added Measures (VAMs) Regardless of whether one supports, is skeptical of, or is against the CCSS and aligned assessments, it is clear that they are highly consequential for both students and teachers. They are even more consequential when students’ test scores are used to evaluate teachers, as is the case with value-added measures (VAMs), which are used to quantify how much positive or negative effect an individual teacher has had on student learning over a given school year. School administrators are increasingly using these measures, usually in combination with other forms of teacher evaluation (e.g., classroom observations), to make decisions about compensation and employment. However, policy analysts caution that: using VAMs for individual teacher evaluation is based on the belief that measured achievement gains for a specific teacher’s students reflect that teacher’s “effectiveness.” This attribution, however, assumes that student learning is measured well by a given test, is influenced by the teacher alone, and is independent from the growth of classmates and other aspects of the classroom context. None of these assumptions is well supported by current evidence. (Darling-Hammond, Amrein-Beardsley, Haertel, & Rothstein, 2012, p. 8) 210 Shifting Conceptions of Equity Darling-Hammond and her colleagues further explain that an individual student’s achievement over the course of a year can be influenced by factors such as their health, needs, and abilities, as well as class sizes, the quality of curriculum materials, and the availability of specialists, tutors, and after-school and summer enrichment programs (or the lack of them), especially for students living in poor communities. Another important factor is the tests being used to measure achievement, which privilege certain kinds of learning and not others. Given this range of issues, which are way beyond an individual teacher’s control, these authors compellingly conclude that value-added methods should not be used in giving or withholding bonuses or in promoting or firing teachers. Doing so would not only be an inconsistent way to evaluate teacher effectiveness, but it would effectively reward or penalize teachers for who they teach. To provide an example of the flawed ways in which value-added measures are used to evaluate teachers, Darling-Hammond and her colleagues (2012) relate the experiences of an award-winning teacher who had transitioned to working more with ELLs. As a result, her students’ test scores dropped, and she received a red flag next to her name indicating that she was now included on a list of ineffective teachers who needed remediation. This teacher’s experiences are similar to those of Hanna Godley, the middle school teacher whose voice opened this chapter. Experiences like this discourage teachers from working in high-need schools or with high-need students, making these classrooms even harder to staff than they already are (Johnson, 2015). Darling-Hammond warns that “the most tragic outcome will be if VAM measures are used to . . . facilitate dismissals, but the teachers who are fired are not the ‘incompetent deadwood’ imagined by advocates” (2015, p. 135). Rather, the teachers who will likely be sanctioned will be those working with: the most challenging students in the most challenging contexts and those whose students are so far ahead of the curve the tests have no items to measure their gains, and perhaps those who eschew test prep in favor of more exciting, but less testable, learning experiences. If value-added measures continue to prove untrustworthy, the likelihood that they can be used to improve the quality of teaching, or of the teaching force, will be remote. (Darling-Hammond, 2015, p. 135) In searching for better ways of evaluating teachers, policymakers have put forth a number of alternatives that have advantages over a single VAMs and short classroom observations. These more comprehensive assessments use a broader range of measures, multiple types of data, and teachers’ reflections on the impact of their practice on student learning. They include the National Board certification, the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT), and the Education Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA). Shifting Conceptions of Equity 211 National Board Certification Modeled after board certification practices in medicine, certification through the National Board for Professional Teaching is a process of evaluation in which experienced teachers voluntarily participate to distinguish themselves as educational leaders. Those eligible must have a bachelor’s degree, a valid teaching license, and a minimum of three years of employment. In addition, National Board certification requires candidates to submit an electronic portfolio that includes descriptions of the context in which they teach, the students with whom they work, and the goals of their instruction. They also provide sample instructional and assessment materials, video clips of their instruction, analyses of teaching events and classroom interactions, analyses of student work, and reflections on student engagement and learning. Note that many of these activities are captured in the expanded teaching and learning cycle (TLC) described in previous chapters and highlighted in the praxis section of each chapter. Upon submission, National Board portfolios are assessed using rubrics aligned to the board’s professional teaching standards. These rubrics evaluate five aspects of teachers’ practice: their commitment to students and their learning; their knowledge of the subjects they teach and how to teach their discipline to diverse learners; their ability to manage and monitor student learning; their ability to think systematically about their practice and learn from classroom practice; and their ability to act as members of the professional learning communities to which they belong. National Board certification has long been considered the gold standard of evaluating teacher effectiveness because it is based on a strong body of evidence that demonstrates its assessment process is more valid and reliable than others. Most notably, these assessments have proven to be a good indicator of gains in student learning over time because they are discipline and grade specific, evaluate teaching practices in relation to student learning, and they track teachers’ progress over time, providing teachers with feedback and targeted guidance for improvement. Further, National Board assessments rely on multiple types of data and are responsive to local communities and policy contexts (e.g., Darling-Hammond et al., 2012; Youngs, 2013). PACT and the edTPA Given the success of the National Board certification process for experienced teachers, in 2002, researchers at Stanford University began developing a similar assessment for pre-service teachers called the Professional Assessment for California Teachers (PACT). The PACT served as a precursor to Stanford’s development of a parallel, nationally available assessment system known as the edTPA (formerly the Teacher Performance Assessment). Both the PACT and the edTPA require pre-service teachers to plan, teach, analyze, and reflect on a 212 Shifting Conceptions of Equity series of three to five lessons within a larger curricular unit (Pecheone & Chung, 2006). Pre-service teachers are assessed in regard to how they: (1) plan instruction and assessment that focus on developing students’ content knowledge and associated disciplinary literacies; (2) provide instruction and engage students in meaningful classroom learning tasks; and (3) assess the impact of their instructional practices on student learning, including the learning of ELLs and speakers of nondominant varieties of English. Similar to the National Board certification process, pre-service teachers must submit an electronic portfolio that includes lesson plans, copies of instructional and assessment materials, video clips of teaching events, and analyses of samples of student work as described by Christina Tucci, a reading specialist, whose voice introduced this chapter. Research regarding the implementation of the PACT and edTPA has shown mixed results. In their favor, studies suggest that both provide a more valid and reliable assessment of pre-service teachers’ readiness to enter the classroom than traditional approaches, which typically include reviewing pre-service candidates’ transcripts and grade point averages, scores on state subject matter licensure exams, and checklists regarding candidates’ behaviors during their practicum placements (e.g., Bunch, Aguirre, & Téllez, 2009; Meuwissen, Choppin, Shang-Butler, & Cloonan, 2015; Price, 2014). Studies indicate that strengths of the PACT and edTPA are that they focus on student learning, are discipline and grade-level specific, and rely on multiple types of data (e.g., video, teacher-made curricular materials and assessments, analysis of student writing samples, use of student test scores). These same studies also highlight a number of limitations regarding what these assessments measure. For example, Bunch, Aguirre, and Téllez (2009) provide evidence that pre-service elementary mathematics teachers demonstrated proficiency in understanding the importance of modeling and teaching disciplinaryspecific literacy practices that extended beyond focusing on isolated vocabulary words, but state that only half of the participants described teaching strategies that build upon students’ home language and community knowledge as resources. They add that many of the teacher candidates in their study continued to frame challenges to teaching in deficit perspectives of students’ home languages, families, and communities rather than in their ability to design and implement curriculum, instruction, and assessments for diverse learners. Kleyn, López, and Makar (2015) provide a similar critique of the edTPA. Their study revealed that the edTPA does not directly address teacher candidates’ preparation to work with multilingual students, especially ELLs. Other critics, while cautiously supportive, have highlighted implementation problems. These studies suggest that rubrics informing these performance assessments, particularly those that focus on the domain of “academic language” are particularly “fuzzy,” and therefore result in “bad statistics” and invalid measures of pre-service teachers’ performance in this area (Wilkerson, 2015, p. 4; Shifting Conceptions of Equity 213 Duckor, Castellano, Téllez, Wihardini, & Wilson, 2014). Other scholars have analyzed the implementation of the edTPA in New York and Washington, two states that require licensure candidates to submit edTPA portfolios as part of completing state licensure requirements (Meuwissen et al., 2015). These scholars found that only half of the completers understood the purpose of this assessment and the criteria used to evaluate their work. The participants in this study also reported friction among stakeholders, including cooperating teachers, school administrators, and university faculty regarding both the purposes and process of compiling electronic portfolios. This friction resulted in overall weak supports for candidates to meet the demands of the edTPA. Collectively, these scholars suggest rubrics can be modified, timelines adjusted, but collaboration between stakeholders needs to be improved to facilitate better use of the PACT and edTPA. Other critics are less convinced that the edTPA is fixable on the grounds that it only further contributes to the marketization, privatization, and the commodification of education in the United States (e.g., Price, 2014; Spring, 2014). These critics question how the PACT, a research-based performance assessment developed by Stanford University for use in California, morphed into the edTPA, a nationalized teacher assessment administered by a for-profit company named Pearson. Moreover, these authors object to companies like Pearson encroaching on the professional domain of local cooperating teachers and teacher educators who know their teacher candidates, local contexts, and student populations better than anonymous raters hired by Pearson to evaluate candidates’ emerging abilities to design, implement, and reflect on student learning. However, it should be noted that universities, especially state funded ones, typically lack the financial resources and technological infrastructure that would enable them to implement robust forms of evaluation without passing the cost of these assessments onto students, a problem that is represented in the voices of the pre-service teachers at the beginning of this chapter. Summary This chapter opened with pre- and in-service teachers’ reactions to a current wave of school reforms associated with the standardization and accountability movement. These reforms include: 1) NCLB legislation; 2) English-only policies reflective of anti-bilingual education ideologies; 3) CCSS and NGSS; 4) highstakes assessments for students and teachers; and 5) the commodification, privatization, and marketization of educational practices that formerly belonged to the public sector. Analyses of these reforms show that they have generated a host of unintended consequences, including higher dropout rates for the most vulnerable students and the sanctioning of teachers working in the most disadvantaged schools. They have also resulted in the shift of the cost of reforms to districts 214 Shifting Conceptions of Equity serving poor communities and individual pre-service teachers who are required to pay private companies for assessments that were once under the purview of colleges and universities. Moreover, research suggests that colleges of education, even at elite private institutions, have had trouble developing standards-based assessment systems for pre-service teachers, especially as it relates to planning, implementing, and critically reflecting on students’ disciplinary literacy development in the context of current discourses shaping text/context dynamics in schools as illustrated in Figure 7.1. The roots of this trouble are related, in part, to the scope and costs of the standardization and accountability movement and the push to privatize aspects of public education. They are also rooted in weak commitments to the professional development of teachers, a topic that will be explored in more depth in Chapter Eight. Praxis Analyzing the Consequences of the Standardization and Accountability Movement on ELLs and Their Teachers The following data collection and analysis tasks build on fieldwork activities from previous chapters. These activities are designed to support your research group in critically exploring and reflecting on both the positive and negative consequences of the standardization and accountability movement in a local school using the conceptual framework shown in Figure 7.1 as a guide. Reflecting on the impact of these reforms is important because they have made ELLs particularly vulnerable. Your group’s exploration and reflection can help you take concrete action toward supporting the positive consequences of current school reforms and mitigating the negative ones. To complete the following tasks, make plans to interview both new and more experienced teachers about their reactions to the standardization and accountability movement. In addition, collectively discuss the implications of your findings for your group’s approach to designing curriculum using the expanded teaching and learning cycle shown in Figure 4.2. Task Directions and Topics for Discussion 1. Select a member of your group who is able to conduct a brief informal interview with one or two teachers, ideally teachers in your discipline who work at the school where you have been collecting data. In a brief report, describe how these teachers see the benefits and limitations of current reforms. Be sure to begin your report with a brief description of the backgrounds of these teachers and how their experiences provide a perspective that may or may not be shared by others working at this school. Use Table 7.A as a guide. Shifting Conceptions of Equity 215 TABLE 7.A Analysis of Teacher Interviews Regarding the Standardization and Accountability Movement Policy Positive consequences Negative Connections consequences to topics presented in this chapter and others Implications for your group related to designing curriculum using the expanded TLC NCLB/State assessments English-only mandates and anti-bilingual education ideologies CCSS/NGSS WIDA Teacher evaluation systems (e.g., VAMs, National Board, edTPA, local systems) Other local or state reforms related to teaching ELLs 2. Select a member of your group who can review data regarding this school’s ability to make “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) based on student test scores on mandated exams. Ideally, you have been collecting data in one school and can review government websites that provide parents and other stakeholders with a school report card regarding students’ scores. These websites often provide information regarding the progress of specific populations (e.g., ELLs, former ELLs, students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged students). In reviewing these data, determine if there are contextual factors that might account for differences in student learning outcomes based on observations at this school and information presented in this chapter. Use Table 7.B as a guide. However, note that different states use different assessments and may not assess students in all disciplines. TABLE 7.B Analysis of High-Stakes Testing Data Test School report card data ELL and former ELL data Notes regarding contextual supports or lack of supports for all students to meet the demands of highstakes testing systems State English language arts test State mathematics test (Continued) 216 Shifting Conceptions of Equity TABLE 7.B (Continued) Test School report card data ELL and former ELL data Notes regarding contextual supports or lack of supports for all students to meet the demands of highstakes testing systems State science and technology test State social studies test CCSS-aligned test (e.g., PARCC, SBAC) WIDA language proficiency tests (ACCESS for ELLs in English, PODER in Spanish) 3. Select a member of your group to informally interview one or two new teachers about their experiences in navigating the discourses of the standardization and accountability movement. Possible topics to explore include: a. Demands on these teachers’ subject matter knowledge b. Teachers’ ability to translate subject matter knowledge into pedagogical practice responsive to diverse students (e.g., designing standardsbased units, scaffolding content and language practices, developing assessments) c. Teachers’ knowledge of students and ability to make connections with students, families, and communities through the design of curriculum d. Teachers’ ability to teach disciplinary literacy practices to all students, including ELLs (e.g., high frequency genres, disciplinary registers, aspects of text complexity) e. Teachers’ ability to reflect on student learning, especially students’ abilities to write disciplinary texts with greater expertise as required on most state exams f. Teachers’ ability to collaborate with others and take collective responsibility for students’ learning g. Teachers’ ability to use technology to support student learning h. Other 4. Select a member of your group to informally interview one or two experienced teachers about their reactions to the standardization and accountability movement. Possible topics include those listed in 3a–h. Shifting Conceptions of Equity 217 Notes 1 edTPA is a performance-based, subject-specific assessment system for teacher candidates across the country developed by Stanford University (www.edtpa.com). 2 MTEL stands for “Massachusetts Tests for Educator Licensure.” MTEL tests assess communication and literacy skills as well as subject matter knowledge of teacher candidates seeking Prekindergarten to grade 12 licenses in Massachusetts. 3 Tk20 stands for “Technology in Kindergarten through Age 20.” It is an assessment, accountability, and management system to help colleges and universities meet requirements for accreditation. Many colleges and universities use Tk20 to help track teacher candidates’ progress through the curriculum. 4 Constructivism is a theory of learning that suggests children develop knowledge through hands-on interactions with objects, the use of language and other meaning-making systems, and by engaging in activities with more skilled others. John Dewey (1933) is often cited as the philosophical founder of this approach. Jean Piaget (1972) is considered the chief theorist among cognitive constructivists, while Lev Vygotsky (1978) is the major theorist among sociocultural constructivists. 5 “Neoliberalism” has become a fuzzy term used to mean different things. In regard to education, it has come to mean a strong belief in privatization and a reduction in government intervention and spending for public schools. Neoliberal theory argues that a free market will support greater efficiency, economic growth, technological advancement, and equity in schools (e.g., Kotz, 2015). References Apple, M. W. (2006). Educating the “right” way: Markets, standards, god, and inequality (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Au, W. (2013). Coring social studies within corporate education reform: The Common Core State Standards, social justice, and the politics of knowledge in U.S. schools. Critical Education, 4(5), 1–15. Bamford, K.W., & Mizokawa, D. T. (1991). Additive-bilingual (immersion) education: Cognitive and language development. Language Learning, 41(3), 413–429. Beach, R.W. (2011). Issues in analyzing alignment of language arts Common Core Standards with state standards. Educational Researcher, 40(4), 179–182. Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bunch, G.C. (2013). Pedagogical language knowledge: Preparing mainstream teachers for English learners in the new standards era. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 298–341. Bunch, G.C., Aguirre, J.M., & Téllez, K. (2009). Beyond the scores: Using candidate responses on high stakes performance assessment to inform teacher preparation for English learners. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(1), 103–128. Calkins, L., Ehrenworth, M., & Leheman, C. (2012). Pathways to the Common Core: Accelerating achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Callahan, R.M., & Gándara, P.C. (Eds.). (2014). The bilingual advantage: Language, literacy and the US labor market. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters. Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2011). Towards an empirically grounded theory of action for improving the quality of mathematics teaching at scale. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 13(1), 6–33. 218 Shifting Conceptions of Equity Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010a) Common Core State Standards for English language arts, and literacy in history/social studies, science, & technical subjects. Washington, DC. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/ELA_Standards1. pdf Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010b). Common Core State Standards (Application of Common Core State Standards for English language learners). Washington, DC. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/assets/application-for-englishlearners.pdf Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010c). Common Core State Standards (Key shifts in mathematics). Washington, DC. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/ other-resources/key-shifts-in-mathematics/ Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010d). Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Washington, DC. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/wp-content/ uploads/Math_Standards1.pdf Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). No Child Left Behind and high school reform. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 642–667. Darling-Hammond, L. (2015). Can value-added add value to teacher evaluation? Educational Researcher, 44(2), 132–137. Darling-Hammond, L., Amrein-Beardsley, A., Haertel, E., & Rothstein, J. (2012). Evaluating teacher evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(6), 8–15. de Oliveira, L.C., & Iddings, J. (Eds.). (2014). Genre pedagogy across the curriculum: Theory and application in U.S. classrooms and contexts. London: Equinox. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath & Co. Publishers. Duckor, B., Castellano, K. E., Téllez, K., Wihardini, D., & Wilson, M. (2014). Examining the internal structure evidence for the performance assessment for California teachers: A validation study of the elementary literacy teaching event for Tier I Teacher Licensure. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(5), 402–420. Flores, N., & Schissel, J. (2014). Dynamic bilingualism as the norm: Envisioning a heteroglossic approach to standards-based reform. TESOL Quarterly, 48(3), 454–479. Gándara, P., & Baca, G. (2008). NCLB and California’s English language learners: The perfect storm. Language Policy, 7(3), 201–216. Gebhard, M. (2015). Functional metalanguage, academic literacy development, and confronting neoliberal school reforms in the United States. Papers in honor of Dr. Claire Kramsch, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. Gibbons, P. (2006). Bridging discourse in the ESL classroom: Students, teachers and researchers. London: Continuum. Guthrie, J.T., Wigfield, A., & You, W. (2012). Instructional contexts for engagement and achievement in reading. In S. Christensen, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 601–634). New York: Springer Science. Gutiérrez, K., Asato, J., Santos, M., & Gotanda, N. (2002). Backlash pedagogy: Language and culture and the politics of reform. The Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 24(4), 335–351. Hakuta, K. (2011). Educating language minority students and affirming their equal rights: Research and practical perspectives. Educational Researcher, 40(4), 163–174. Herold, B., & Molnar, M. (2014). Research questions Common-Core claims by publishers. Education Week, 33(23), 1. Retrieved from www.edweek.org/ew/articles/ 2014/03/05/23textbooks_ep.h33.html Shifting Conceptions of Equity 219 Johnson, S.M. (2015). Will VAMs reinforce the walls of the egg-crate school? Educational Researcher, 44(2), 11–126. Karp, S. (2013). The problems with the Common Core. Rethinking Schools, 28(2), 10–17. Kirst, M. (2013). The Common Core meets state policy: This changes almost everything. Stanford, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education. Kleyn, T., López, D., & Makar, C. (2015). What about bilingualism? A critical reflection on the edTPA with teachers of emergent bilinguals. Bilingual Research Journal. 38(1), 88–106. Kornhaber, M.L., Griffith, G., & Tyler, A. (2014). It’s not education by zip code anymore—but what is it? Conceptions of equity under the Common Core. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(4), 1–26. Kotz, D.M. (2015). The rise and fall of neoliberal capitalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kramsch, C. (2006). From communicative competence to symbolic competence. Modern Language Journal, 90(2), 249–252. Kramsch, C. (2009). The multilingual subject: What foreign language learners say about their experience and why it matters. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners: Language demands and opportunities in relation to Next Generation Science Standards. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223–233. Lopez, F., & McEneaney, B. (2012). State implementation of language acquisition policies and reading achievement among Hispanic students. Educational Policy, 26(3), 418–464. Lucas, T. (Ed.). (2011). Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators. New York: Routledge. McDermott, K.A. (2011). High-stakes reform: The politics of educational accountability. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. McLaughlin, M., Glaab, L., & Hilliger Carrasco, I. (2014). Implementing Common Core state standards in California: A report from the field. Stanford, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education. Menken, K. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Toronto: Multilingual Matters. Meuwissen, K., Choppin, J., Shang-Butler, H., & Cloonan, K. (2015). Teaching candidates’ perceptions of and experiences with early implementation of the edTPA licensure examination in New York and Washington states. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Olsen, B., & Sexton, D. (2009). Threat rigidity, school reform, and how teachers view their work inside current education policy contexts. American Educational Research Journal, 46(1), 9–44. Pearson, P.D., & Hiebert, E.H. (2013). Understanding the Common Core State Standards. In L. Morrow, T. Shanahan, & K.K. Wixson (Eds.), Teaching with the Common Core State Standards for English language arts: What educators need to know, Grades Pre-K-2 (pp. 1–21). New York: Guilford Press. Pecheone, R., & Chung, R. (2006). Evidence in teacher education: The Performance Assessment for California Teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 22–36. Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books. Price, T. (2014). Teacher education under audit: Value-added measures, TVAAS, EdTPA and evidence-based theory. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 13(3), 211–225. 220 Shifting Conceptions of Equity Rebarber, T. (2012). National cost of aligning states and localities to the Common Core State Standards. Boston, MA: Pioneer Institute. Spring, J. (2014). Political agendas for education. New York: Routledge. Thomas, W.P., & Collier, V.P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159–180. Wilkerson, J. (2015). The need for instructional sensitivity and construct clarity in PACT: A commentary on “Examining the internal structure evidence for the performance assessment for California teachers.” Journal of Teacher Education, 66(2), 184–192. Wright, W.E. (2015). Foundations for teaching English language learners: Research, theory, policy, and practice (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Caslon. Youngs, P. (2013). Using teacher evaluation reform and professional development to support Common Core assessments. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. 8 PLACING THE EDUCATION OF ELLS IN A HISTORIC, ECONOMIC, AND POLITICAL CONTEXT I don’t understand why teaching ELLs has become such an overwhelming issue. My grandparents were immigrants—they worked hard and got jobs, and they did just fine. Why has teaching these students become so political? – “Mary Bilski,” sixth grade general education teacher Mary Bilski, a participant in the ACCELA Alliance, asked the question of why the education of ELLs has become so intensely controversial. With nods of agreement from other teachers, she added that when her grandparents came from Poland in the 1950s, they didn’t speak any English, but were still able to get good factory jobs, buy a nice home, and raise a family without a lot of extra services and special classes. Mary, like many teachers, wanted to understand why everything has changed so much and become so much more complicated, at least from her perspective. This chapter explores Mary’s question by reviewing the historic, economic, and political context of schooling in the United States (the outermost layer of Figure 8.1) as it relates to multilingual students, including immigrants. This chapter begins by briefly explaining the rise of the Progressive Era of education at the turn of the 20th century and then examines the historical record of approaches to educating different groups of immigrants in different geographic and economic contexts in the United States since the development of the modern public school system (e.g., Tyack & Cuban, 1995). This record makes clear that education has always been politically motivated, and that immigrants and other marginalized multilingual groups have always experienced public schooling on the one hand as a vehicle for social mobility, and on the other hand as 222 Historic, Economic, and Political Context FIGURE 8.1 Text/context dynamics in schools (focus on genre and register) a powerful force in the reproduction of social inequalities (e.g., Fass 1989). To explore these contradictory aspects of public education, this chapter addresses the following questions: • • • How have schools historically responded to waves of immigration? What was the Progressive Era and how do educational reforms associated with this period continue to shape educational practices and policy debates today? How can educators develop a deeper understanding of past school reforms so they can respond to current changes in the nature of their work, especially as it relates to designing curriculum, instruction, and assessments for all students, including ELLs and other multilingual students? The Growth of the Modern School System: Two Faces of the Progressive Era In an analysis of the development of public education in the United States, Carl Kaestle (1983) argues that the impetus to expand public education came from multiple forces. Significant among these were the simultaneous growth of industrial cities and the rapid increase of non-English-speaking immigrants in urban Historic, Economic, and Political Context 223 centers in the mid-1800s. Kaestle maintains that these demographic, cultural, and economic changes in the structure of society resulted in the perception that the social fabric of the country was in jeopardy. In response, reformers such as Horace Mann pushed for the expansion of common schools, or free, non-sectarian, public institutions meant for all students. These common schools were designed in part to socialize students, including immigrants, into an ethos of republicanism and the values of the Protestant middle class. This dominant cultural mindset was thought to fit the needs of a developing capitalistic economy and emerging modern state. However, educational historian Paula Fass claims that “the school, as it was envisaged by educators and often imagined by historians, was never as powerful an integrator, equalizer, or socializer as it has been portrayed” (1989, p. 109). In her book titled Outside In: Minorities and the Transformation of American Education, Fass explores how immigrants, Blacks, women, and Catholics responded to common school impulses during the Progressive Era and into the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. She explains how school reforms associated with the common school movement and Progressive Era were built on the assumption that democracy and a strong economy could be achieved by expanding voting rights to more citizens and developing a public education system that socializes more people into participating in American social, economic, and political life by responding to their individual needs and abilities. For example, progressives such as John Dewey (1928) pushed schools to offer hands-on, project-based learning so learners could reach their individual potential. However, he also encouraged teachers to engage students in inquiry projects that would enable them to learn subject matter knowledge, explore different trades or academic paths suited to their individual interests and abilities, and develop the dispositions required for participation in a democratic society. Fass maintains that this double commitment to democratic principles and the “ideology of individual differences” resulted in essential ambiguities and contradictions that continue to define U.S. education today (1989, p. 69). Administrative Progressives and Social Progressives To explain the origins of these contradictions, David Tyack (1974) chronicles the transformation of one-room schoolhouses into the modern school system and how the growth of this system received support from conservatives and social progressives alike. Conservatives, dubbed “administrative progressives” (Cohen & Mohl, 1979, p. 4), were interested in the development of large, scientifically managed schools capable of producing a steady supply of workers and consumers to serve as wage earners and spenders in the nation’s growing number of factories and retail businesses (Spring, 2018). Tyack (1974) describes the growth of manufacturing, agribusiness, the rail system, and consumerism as indicators of the momentum of economic and social changes taking place in both rural and urban America at the time. 224 Historic, Economic, and Political Context “Social progressives,” on the other hand, were becoming increasingly troubled by the way the development of an industrial and capitalistic state was creating alarming conditions of poverty in urban slums, forcing women and children to work in appalling factory conditions for low wages, and producing an everincreasing divide between the classes in American society. Social progressives viewed large modern schools as a technological advancement capable of efficiently providing all Americans—rich and poor, U.S. born and immigrants, rural and urban—with an education that would equip them with the means for achieving social and economic mobility, and society with the means for achieving democracy and a strong economy (Tyack, 1974).1 While administrative and social progressives pursued different political agendas during the Progressive Era, they shared a belief in the social benefits of modernity and its accompanying technologies (Cohen, 2002; Fass, 1989; Leonard, 2016). For example, administrative and social progressives both bemoaned the education children received in outdated one-room schoolhouses. They criticized this form of education on the grounds that teachers were too heavily controlled by unprofessional, community-based school boards. They also objected to sporadic attendance and idiosyncratic folk-teaching practices that resulted in children being unevenly prepared to play a productive role in the rapidly changing industrial economy. Moreover, social progressives strongly objected to the classroom practices of teachers who lacked a scientific understanding of child development and too often relied on corporal punishment to control students’ behavior. Social progressives also decried dismal facilities that lacked heat, running water, and modern curricular resources such as books, art education, wood-working shops, and playgrounds, all of which were believed to be necessary for a well-rounded, humanist education (e.g., Tyack, 1974). What both administrative and social progressives wanted, albeit for different reasons, were expanded school facilities modeled after the factory plant and not altogether different in character than the public schools of today. Administrative progressives were particularly taken with the factory approach to managing large groups of students as a way to use time, space, materials, and personnel efficiently. They thought this efficiency could be achieved in schools, as in factories, through the specialization of function (e.g., disciplinary specialists), a division of labor (e.g., grade levels, departments, and levels of administration), and careful attention to time (e.g., schedules, bells). As in factories, trained professionals coordinated activities through an established hierarchy. In schools, this hierarchy consisted of classroom teachers, department chairs, curriculum specialists, principals, and superintendents. In this way, the nature of schooling, as well as the architectural character of schools, was transformed by innovations that included larger schools with longer school days in which students were grouped by age into different grades. Each grade had a prescribed curriculum in which specialist teachers taught courses during set periods of time. Bells rang, as in the factory, and groups of students moved from one specialist teacher to the next, ensuring Historic, Economic, and Political Context 225 that all teachers and facilities were utilized to the maximum extent in standardized ways to achieve standardized outcomes in the most cost-effective manner. What social progressives found attractive about these innovations to compulsory public education was that as schools expanded and became more specialized in their functions, they became important community centers capable of delivering a wide range of social services, especially to the poor. These services included play-based kindergartens, penny lunch programs, health services, after-school recreation programs, and adult evening classes. They also included new subjects such as music education, art education, physical education, home economics, and industrial arts (e.g., Tyack, 1974). The Schooling of Immigrants in the 20th Century In describing how immigrant communities responded to reforms associated with the Progressive Era, a number of historians provide compelling evidence that multilingual immigrants shared the belief that the function of schooling was to provide their children with the linguistic and cultural tools needed for participation in a rapidly changing society. However, in line with Fass’ (1989) findings, multilingual families in different parts of the country did not always react to reforms in the way progressives envisioned. Rather, they tended to resist compulsory education when it meant participating in a system that provided them with an inferior education. The Midwest Ronald Cohen and Raymond Mohl (1979) analyzed the experiences of immigrants in the industrial city of Gary, Indiana. They write that immigrant families, comprising a high percentage of the city’s population as early as 1910, went along with compulsory education, but this trend was only prevalent in the primary grades. As evidence, Cohen and Mohl cite higher rates of school attendance for immigrant children in Gary’s primary schools when compared with rates of attendance of “native-born white students” (1979, p. 100). These authors explain that immigrant families saw schools as places where young children could learn a requisite amount of English and cultural understanding to assist their families, as well as have access to social services such as medical screenings (e.g., eye exams and hearing tests). However, counter to what progressives at the time envisioned, public schools were not efficient cultural melting pots where passive immigrant families willingly and cleanly exchanged their home language for English and their culture for American middle-class norms. For example, in addition to participating in American school life, immigrant children participated in community-based organizations that offered after-school programs and Saturday schools where their language and culture were maintained. Moreover, culturally conservative immigrants established their own parochial schools, creating another 226 Historic, Economic, and Political Context firewall against what some immigrants saw as the potentially destructive forces of Americanization (Cohen, 2002; Cohen & Mohl, 1979; Fass, 1989). At the secondary level, attendance patterns for older immigrants indicated a distinct reversal from attendance in elementary schools. Cohen and Mohl (1979) provide evidence that after eighth grade immigrants attended school erratically and tended to drop out in higher numbers than their non-immigrant counterparts. Cohen and Mohl suggest that many immigrant students of secondary school age felt they could best serve their families by going to work in factories with their fathers or becoming domestic workers like their mothers. As a result, many immigrant families were able to pool together enough money to make home ownership possible, a key to becoming middle class. In other words, Cohen and Mohl’s argument is that economic and social mobility became a reality for many immigrants not because they stayed in school, but because they dropped out and went to work. Cohen and Mohl (1979) explain a second reason why immigrant students left high school early. This flight from secondary schools centered on the twotiered, segregated nature of schools in the city. The better schools in Gary were located on the more affluent North Side. These schools served mostly affluent White students born in the United States and recent immigrants from northern European countries. The second-tier schools were located on the city’s poorer South Side and were attended by Blacks and recent immigrants from eastern and southern European countries. The North Side schools had a greater number of academic programs and better facilities. In comparison, students attending South Side schools received less instruction in reading, math, science, history, geography, and languages, and more instruction in cooking, sewing, and bookkeeping for girls, and woodworking, plumbing, painting, printing, and metalwork for boys. Given the lack of academic programs in South Side schools, many immigrant students’ perception was that schoolwork was not altogether different from future domestic or factory work except in one critical way—it was unpaid. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that secondary schools lacked holding power over Gary’s immigrant working-age students. The West Analyses of the educational experiences of immigrant groups in other regions show a similar pattern. For example, Judith Raftery’s (1992) study of immigrants’ participation in Los Angeles public schools parallels the experiences of immigrants in Gary during the same time period. Like Cohen and Mohl, Raftery provides evidence that immigrant communities utilized public school programs for their younger children, including kindergarten classes, free lunch programs, and basic medical services. In addition, Raftery documents how newcomer communities took steps to configure school services to fit their educational needs by petitioning school boards for playground facilities, supervised after-school programs, Historic, Economic, and Political Context 227 native language instruction, and spaces in which to celebrate cultural events (1992, p. 198). In most cases, prior to the xenophobic period surrounding World Wars I and II, school boards granted petitioners their requests. These requests, however, were seldom directed at improving the education of immigrants in Los Angeles’ secondary schools. Like their Gary counterparts, when immigrant children in Los Angeles became teenagers they opted to go to work and make a wage rather than attend segregated schools that offered remedial courses and unpaid vocational work. However, given the differences between the two cities, home ownership for immigrants in Los Angeles was less prevalent than in Gary, due in part to the unspoken rule of Whites not selling property to non-Whites. The Southwest Guadalupe San Miguel (1987) explores the schooling experiences of students of Mexican and Native American descent in Texas between 1910 and 1940. Central to understanding these students’ experiences is an appreciation of the implications of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which was signed in 1848. This treaty ended the Mexican-American War and resulted in Mexico surrendering claims to Texas and territories north of the Rio Grande that would later become Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming (del Castillo, 1992). As a result, the schooling experiences of students described in San Miguel’s study are different from those of other immigrant learners because these students had not, in fact, immigrated at all. John Ogbu, an educational anthropologist, distinguishes between these types of students and those described in the previous sections. “Voluntary” immigrants, such as those in Cohen and Mohl’s (1979) and Raftery’s (1992) studies, are those who “more or less willingly moved to the United States because they expect better opportunities (better jobs, more political or religious freedom) than they had in their homelands or places of origin” (Ogbu & Simons, 1998, p. 164). In contrast, “involuntary nonimmigrant[s],” such as the students described in San Miguel’s (1987) study, are those whose minority status arises as a result of being “conquered, colonized, or enslaved” (Ogbu & Simons, 1998, p. 165). The experiences of involuntary nonimmigrant students chronicled in San Miguel’s book signal a fundamentally different set of ideologies defining the mission of public education for White Texans versus Mexican Americans and Native Americans at the time. For example, San Miguel describes two powerful intersecting forces—the growing agricultural economy of Texas, which relied on unskilled labor, and the burgeoning eugenics movement. The eugenics movement began at the turn of the 20th century and advanced educational policies and practices based on the belief that certain races are genetically superior to others and that these differences could be identified through the new science of intelligence testing (e.g., Fass, 1989; Leonard, 2016; Winfield, 2012). Equipped with these new tools, educators in Texas during the Progressive Era argued that 228 Historic, Economic, and Political Context Mexican Americans were culturally and intellectually inferior to Whites, and that Mexican Americans with Native American ancestry were the least suited to academic work. These beliefs provided educators with a pseudo-scientific rationale for providing students of Mexican heritage with a remedial curriculum and limited employment options. For example, San Miguel provides evidence that powerful cotton and vegetable growers put pressure on school officials to selectively enforce school attendance laws when it came to Mexican American students. San Miguel also describes principles of racial segregation operating in schools serving Mexican American and Native American students; a lack of proper equipment such as desks, chairs, and chalkboards in these schools; poorly trained teaching staff who were not much older than the students themselves; and the distinctively non-academic curriculum directed at these students. Understandably, this system invited resistance and did little to fulfill the goals of the Progressive Era (Fass, 1989; Leonard, 2016; San Miguel, 1987). The Northeast Paula Fass (1989) comes to similar conclusions regarding New York City schools during the Progressive Era, but puts a sharper point on the issue of institutional racism than many other educational historians. For example, she provides an analysis of how the democratic and humanistic goals of progressive education took on decisively non-progressive meanings when coupled with faith in the science of intelligence testing and organizational management, which made the testing of large numbers of students in New York City possible. Guided by the logic of administrative progressivism, the form and function of public education in New York City at the time centered on efficiently assessing the aptitude of individual students and creating differentiated curricula matched to categories of assumed potential. Reformers thought the new science of standardized intelligence testing would allow for the creation of differentiated educational tracks that could attend to varied student needs in a streamlined fashion within large, professionally managed schools. In this way, the perception of scientific objectivity disguised strong cultural biases and racist ideologies and Dewey’s democratic ideal of individualized instruction mutated into class- and race-based remediation. Fass (1989) captures this mutation when she writes: John Dewey had most idealistically represented this new direction [of progressive education] by passionately rejecting the view that education was the acquisition of the accumulated wisdom of the past and by urging instead that the unfolding of the child’s (and society’s) potential should be the mission of the schools. By shifting the charge to the schools from the traditional one of instilling an agreed upon body of knowledge to an active development of understanding pegged to individual talent in a changing society, Dewey and progressive pedagogy sharpened the challenges facing the schools. Given the Historic, Economic, and Political Context 229 schools’ design, their dependence on structured grades, central administration, their emphasis on order, and cost efficiency, progressive educational theories propelled the schools to seek ways to define children, not individually, but according to the range of their educability. (p. 51) The Schooling of Immigrants in the 21st Century As discussed in Chapter Seven, many analysts of American education argue that the nature of schooling has changed very little over the last century despite the shift from an industrial, national, and factory-based economy to a computermediated, globalized, and knowledge-based one (e.g., New London Group, 1996). For example, leading educational policy analysts such as Linda DarlingHammond (1995, 2006, 2015) argue that historically rooted institutional practices such as those described by Fass (1989) and others continue to systematically and structurally create different learning opportunities for ELLs, Latinx students, and African Americans. In words that echo descriptions of schooling practices of the past, Darling-Hammond documents the disastrous consequences of inequitable funding formulas and inequitable access to educational resources that students experience in schools today. She describes how these practices result in ELLs and students of color being tracked in classes taught by unqualified, inexperienced teachers or being concentrated in rundown schools where quality curricular materials and basic equipment are scarce. Moreover, she and others have documented how new testing regimes associated with the standardization and accountability movement, counter to their intent, have forced many students out of schools in alarming numbers (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 2006). Support for Darling-Hammond’s conclusions comes from qualitative studies of the day-to-day schooling experiences of students. These studies shed light on statistics regarding the failure of schools to meet the academic needs of ELLs, especially those who have attended U.S. schools for many years. These studies show how elementary and secondary schools, even those attempting to address persistent educational inequities, often: (1) maintain deficit views of the academic potential of immigrants, ELLs, and students of color; (2) provide inadequate instructional supports for students’ disciplinary literacy development; (3) track and assess students in ways that limit, rather than develop students’ academic literacy practices; and (4) provide little in the way of professional development for teachers (e.g., Gebhard, 2000; Harklau, 1994a, 1994b, 1994c; Olsen, 1997). School Reform in a Silicon Valley Elementary School Before becoming a teacher educator at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, I conducted research in California elementary schools. This research examined how students, teachers, families, and school administrators attempted to respond to dramatic economic shifts shaping school reforms in the 1990s and how these reforms 230 Historic, Economic, and Political Context influenced ELLs’ academic trajectories and teachers’ abilities to act as change agents (Gebhard 2000, 2004). Using ethnographic methods, I analyzed how institutional policies and classroom literacy practices intersected in an elementary school serving Latinx ELLs at the height of the economic boom taking place in California’s Silicon Valley at the time. This school, “Web Elementary,” received considerable funding from a state policy initiative and a high-profile software company to implement school restructuring plans reflective of organizational changes taking place in “high-tech,” “high-performance” workplaces (Gebhard, 2004, p. 245). These reforms were characterized by a belief that work in the business world, and therefore in schools, should not be organized to look like factory work reflective of the “old work order” (Gee, Hull, & Lankshear, 1996, p. 24). Rather, advocates of school restructuring argued that students should participate in interdisciplinary instruction to accomplish purposeful academic projects in collaborative groups. Moreover, schools, like businesses, should flatten hierarchical structures to enable administrators to work more collaboratively with teachers and families to solve local problems more effectively and efficiently. As a result, Web Elementary classrooms became more technologically well equipped and less institutional in character. For example, students had access to computers and the Internet at a time when that was very unusual. In addition, students worked on projects while listening to classical music in a room that was decorated with soft lighting, muted throw pillows, and family pictures in attractive frames. However, in regard to literacy instruction, new reforms placed ELLs and their families in jeopardy in new ways. For example, becoming and remaining a student at Web Elementary meant achieving high scores on standardized tests given in English. It was possible for immigrant families to negotiate the right for their children to remain at Web despite low scores if parents were able to fit a rather narrow definition of what it meant to be a “responsible” parent at the school. This definition necessitated that immigrant parents not only be fluent in English, but also adopt culturally specific roles such as “parents as partners” and “parents as volunteers.” The degree to which the parents of immigrant children understood the roles they were expected to play and/or the degree to which assuming these roles was a possibility varied, and had profound consequences for their children. For example, one student’s mother worked as an unpaid bilingual aide for a full year and was thus able to secure her daughter’s future at the school. Another mother was able to keep her son in good standing because she played a key role at a school fundraising event. However, the parents of a third student, “Alma,” had less flexible work schedules and were less proficient in English. Both of these factors contributed to the teachers’ perceptions that Alma’s family was less able to support her, and she would be better off attending a less academically rigorous school in the district. Teachers made this recommendation despite the fact that Alma’s abilities to complete assigned tasks were almost identical to her ELL peers. A linguistic analysis of Alma’s textual practices over two years showed how ELLs, despite interacting in a well-equipped classroom, Historic, Economic, and Political Context 231 still participated in literacy practices that were remedial and akin to “literacy piecework” (Gebhard, 2004, p. 246). These practices, like assembly work in a factory, overwhelmingly constructed language as a system of parts (e.g., sounds, words, sentences, paragraphs) and language learning as the silent assembly of these parts (e.g., taking spelling tests, completing grammar worksheets, copying texts accurately). As a result, over the course of the investigation, Alma’s ability to produce academic texts changed very little, thus making it unlikely that she would remain enrolled at this school or be able to position herself favorably in the rapid redistribution of wealth and power taking place in California’s Silicon Valley in the 1990s. Tracking in Secondary Schools At the secondary level, Harklau (1994a, 1994b, 1994c) reports a similar trend in her analysis of how tracking structures influenced the trajectories of four ELL high school students in California. She found that low-track classes were poor second language learning environments because students in these classes were exposed to truncated, inauthentic reading material, had little practice in composing extended texts, and had few opportunities to participate orally in small group learning activities. As a result, Harklau describes the texts students produced as ungrammatical, awkward, and lacking content despite their investment in their school work. Similarly, Olsen (1997) describes institutional practices that produced inequities at a California high school. However, she also examines how issues of race were implicated in students’ processes of language learning. Based on a two-year study, she describes how “Madison High School” celebrated diversity on the surface, but continued to produce a stratified hierarchy based on English proficiency and race in ways that echo Celine’s experiences described in Chapter Two. Olsen writes that the task of learning English at this high school was “accompanied by another major task—becoming racialized into a highly structured social order, where one’s position is determined by skin color” and where, as a result, one has “very unequal access to resources, opportunities, and education” (1997, p. 11). She illustrates these findings by analyzing the schooling experiences of “Sandra,” a recent immigrant from Brazil who felt pressure to define herself as White, Black, or Latinx even when these categories ran counter to her understanding of herself as a Brazilian speaker of Portuguese. However, over time, pressure to fit in led Sandra to place herself on the racialized social map that structured nearly all interactions at Madison High. The peer group she aligned herself with was a group of Latina students she described as “cholas . . . the tough girls” (Olsen, 1997, p. 108). As Olsen makes clear, Sandra’s attitude toward her education was not a matter of succumbing to the adolescent whims of her peers. Rather, institutional practices cultivated and reinforced peer group beliefs about the value of a public school education. For example, Olsen describes two marginalizing aspects of the Madison school district: a Newcomer Center for ELLs located down the street from 232 Historic, Economic, and Political Context Madison High, and the tracking practices of Madison High itself, which grouped students according to their perceived academic abilities. Olsen describes the Newcomer Center as a centralized intake, assessment, and instructional facility for ELLs in the district. Approximately 25% of the district’s ELLs, including a great number from Madison High, were bussed to the Newcomer Center from their regularly assigned high school for part of each school day to attend ESL and homelanguage classes. However, Olsen reports that this marginal space was characterized by overcrowded classes that lacked academic rigor and were taught by inexperienced, often unqualified teachers who described their assignments as “low-status” and “overwhelming” (1997, pp. 167–168). As a result, Olsen argues that Madison High ELLs were provided an education with serious gaps, which echoes descriptions of ESL instruction in other elementary and secondary settings (e.g., Gebhard, 2004; Harklau, 1994a, 1994b, 1994c). Even worse, the portion of the school day these students spent at Madison High did little to fill in these gaps because tracking practices disproportionately assigned Latinx and Black students to low-level classes and White and Asian students to honors and college preparatory classes, further reinforcing the construction of racialized identities and the creation of race-based conditions of academic advantage and disadvantage (see also Olsen, 1997). These studies, as well as others, provide insight into how schooling can paradoxically result in students’ academic illiteracy, as opposed to supporting their development of disciplinary literacies (e.g., Hartman & Tarone, 1999; Lankshear & Lawler, 1987). One factor in this ironic student outcome is a mismatch in different teachers’ theories of language and literacy. For example, Hartman and Tarone (1999) provide evidence that ESL specialists and English language arts teachers working in the same urban Minnesota high school had very different conceptions of what the act of teaching and learning to write entails. Their data, similar to the data I collected in a Silicon Valley elementary school, show that ESL teachers who worked with beginning ELLs tended to think of writing in more mechanical terms and as a tool to support students in copying isolated words, taking spelling tests, and completing isolated grammar drills. In contrast, English language arts teachers tended to describe writing as a cognitive process by which students discover and hone their thoughts as they compose. This perspective regarding the potential power of writing to support deeper learning across content areas is more commensurate with current research on second language literacy development (e.g., Hyland, 2004; Leki, Cumming, & Silva, 2010). However, Hartman and Tarone (1999) report that mainstream English language arts teachers brought a very different interpretive lens to their work with ELLs. These teachers regarded the texts produced by even advanced ELLs as deficient and attributed these deficiencies to students’ cultural backgrounds and cognitive abilities. None of the teachers considered the fact that students’ performance may be indicative of their own need for better professional development so they could learn how to scaffold more robust forms of disciplinary literacy instruction (e.g., Walqui, 2006; Walqui and van Lier, 2010). Historic, Economic, and Political Context 233 In the face of persistent educational inequities that echo and reproduce the failures of Progressive Era school reforms, many policy analysts are calling for a rethinking of school structures and instructional practices that harken back to times long past and result in unmet promises regarding social mobility and democracy through education (e.g., Miramontes, Nadeau, & Commins, 2011). For example, Linda Darling-Hammond has been arguing for over 25 years that if school reforms are to avoid the failures of the Progressive Era, different approaches to reform are required. She maintains that Dewey’s progressivism gave way to inequitable, standardizing practices because top-down policies tightened controls on teaching and learning through de-professionalizing curricular and testing mandates. In contrast, she advocates that reforms should focus resources on “developing the capacity of schools and teachers to be responsible for student learning and responsive to [diverse and changing] student and community needs, interests, and concerns” (Darling-Hammond, 1993, p. 754). Noting that “students are not standardized and teaching is not routine,” Darling-Hammond argues that reforms that are likely to transform schools into more equitable “thinking institutions” are those that support teachers in designing powerful curriculum, instruction, assessments, and other means of reflecting on student learning in professional rather than bureaucratic ways (p. 757). Chapters Four, Five, and Nine provide examples of how teachers, teacher educators, and literacy researchers have collaborated in these ways using SFL tools and the expanded teaching and learning cycle (see Figure 4.2). Summary This chapter opened with the voice of an experienced teacher who wanted to know why the education of ELLs had become such an intense topic of debate in recent history. She raised this question because she believed immigrants of the past were able to make their way into the middle class without special programs or approaches to teaching and learning. To offer one answer to this teacher’s seemingly simple, but actually highly complex question, this chapter provided a brief review of the history of Progressive Era reforms, their consequences, and the legacy they have left on modern education for immigrant and other multilingual students. Specifically, this chapter described how administrative and social progressives during the 20th century ushered in the development of large public school systems designed to provide all students, rich and poor, with access to a public education that would enable them to reach their individual potential in society to build a strong democracy and economy. These reforms included kindergartens, project-based approaches to teaching and learning, wood shops and industrial arts programs, home economics classes, meal programs, after-school clubs, and various kinds of social services. However, the implementation of these Progressive Era reforms was also guided by a strong belief in individual differences, faith in the new science of intelligence testing, and a commitment to efficiency. 234 Historic, Economic, and Political Context The historical record shows that these two faces of the Progressive Era produced schools that tracked students and offered a highly inequitable curriculum to immigrants and students of color. As a consequence, immigrants tended to drop out of school early so they could find work in the steady supply of jobs available in the growing industrial economy. Educational historians maintain that many immigrants, especially White Europeans, were thus able to achieve social mobility, not because they complied with compulsory education, but because they resisted it. In addition, racist ideologies coupled with Progressive Era reforms further marginalized and limited the economic and political advancement of voluntary immigrant and involuntary nonimmigrant students of color. In these contexts, compulsory attendance laws were sporadically enforced and school boards did little to expand educational and employment opportunities for these students, particularly Mexican Americans and Native Americans. Last, this chapter briefly reviewed several studies of the schooling experiences of immigrants attending schools in the 21st century. These studies illustrate that school reforms, despite sweeping demographic and economic shifts taking place at the turn of this century, continue to be guided by the contradictory reforms of the Progressive Era. As documented in this chapter and others, these one-time “innovations” to schooling include a persistent commitment to tracking and testing and the ideology of individual difference. These commitments have further advanced cultural deficit theories regarding the academic potential of immigrants and students of color. Collectively, these forces continue to constrain students’ development of disciplinary literacies and their ability to position and reposition themselves in a rapidly changing social, economic, and political world. In sum, what many current and past school reformers lack is a well-articulated understanding of what language is, how language practices shape the development of subject matter knowledge, and how approaches to teaching literacy are implicated in undemocratic learning outcomes. In response, this book calls for greater attention to be paid to social semiotic theories of language, learning, and social change in teacher education programs to support educators in designing, implementing, and critically reflecting on the literacy development of all students, especially those from historically marginalized communities. Examples of how teachers have engaged in this work are illustrated in Chapters Four and Five and will be explored in greater detail in Chapter Nine. Praxis Collecting and Analyzing Data on the Historic, Economic, and Political Context of a School Community Using Figure 8.1 and this chapter as a guide, collect information regarding the historic, economic, social, and political context of a school where you work, are completing a practicum, or are conducting a research project related to the Historic, Economic, and Political Context 235 disciplinary literacy development of multilingual students. This information is typically available on reliable school, district, city, and state websites. Depending on the scope of your project and group members’ goals, you might also explore published scholarship regarding the history of immigration in this community. Task Directions and Topics for Discussion 1. 2. 3. Select a member of your group to conduct and present a brief one- to twopage report on the history of the community where your group is collecting data (e.g., when this area was settled and by whom, changes in demographics over time, significant events in the community’s history). Feel free to create a timeline with a list of bullets to facilitate your presentation. Select a member of your group to conduct and present a brief one- to twopage economic profile of this community now (e.g., the population; leading employers; average income; median price of a home; graduation rates disaggregated by race, class, and gender; college attendance rates disaggregated by race, class, and gender; and other data that might influence students’ attempts to graduate from high school and transition from school to work or school to college in this community). In addition, review “help wanted” ads in this community to support your profile. Feel free to present this information in a table or as a list of bullets. Select a member of your group who is able to conduct a brief informal interview with someone who has lived and worked in this community for a long time. The questions guiding this interview should address changes in the economic, social, and political life of this community. For example, you might consider preparing questions about key topics such as: • • • 4. The role of immigrants in shaping this community historically Reforms that are reflective of the commitments of administrative and social progressives as discussed in this chapter The implications of high school dropout rates in the past and currently for individuals, their families, and the community. Based on this interview, prepare and present a brief one- to two-page report in the form of a table or list of bullets. Review the curricular unit your group has been planning using the expanded teaching and learning cycle (TLC) shown in Figure 4.2. Based on insights gained from reading this chapter and conducting fieldwork related to the implications of school reforms in this community, reflect on and make modifications to your unit. Some topics you might consider related to each stage of the expanded TLC include: • Stage One: The degree to which your stated content and literacy goals reflect high expectations and are linguistically and culturally responsive (e.g., address specified content standards and develop age appropriate 236 Historic, Economic, and Political Context • • • • • • • • literacy practices). If you are not sure, consider including additional texts, even short ones, to augment mandatory readings and assignments (e.g., statistical data regarding school, community, and state demographics; primary source documents regarding the history of immigrants in this community; analysis of local environmental issues; literature produced by local authors). Stage Two: The degree to which you have identified the specific content and literacy objectives that will guide the implementation and assessment of this unit. The assessment tool(s) you create should target the content and literacy objectives very concretely (e.g., rubrics to assess student writing based on the instruction provided). Stage Three: The degree to which you have supported students in “building the field” by engaging in hands-on activities, using video and graphic representations of key concepts, allowing ample time for discussion in the students’ home language and English prior to assigning challenging reading and writing assignments. Stage Four: The degree to which you have designed scaffolding tasks and curricular materials to enable the whole class to jointly deconstruct a challenging text (e.g., provided students with a preview of key topics and a graphic organizer to highlight key genre stages and register features). Stage Five: The degree to which you have designed scaffolding tasks and curricular materials to support the whole class in jointly constructing an effective text. These tasks and materials highlight ways of using language and images to: (1) recount, narrate, describe, explain, or argue in a specific discipline (e.g., developing genre knowledge); (2) construct key concepts (e.g., developing field resources); (3) present ideas with authority (e.g. developing tenor resources); and (4) expand on ideas while staying on topic (e.g., developing mode resources). Stage Six: The degree to which you have planned to provide opportunities for students to comprehend and produce disciplinary texts with less scaffolding using targeted disciplinary literacy practices so they are able to apply new ways of reading and writing to new disciplinary tasks more independently and expertly over time. Stage Seven: The degree to which you have planned opportunities for all students to present their work to a wider audience as a way of providing students with an authentic purpose and audience for their work and a mechanism for building community. Stage Eight: The degree to which you have created tools for assessing students’ final project as specified in Stage Two and scaffolded in Stages Three through Seven. Stage Nine: The degree to which you have practiced collecting and analyzing samples of student work to reflect on the degree to which stated content and literacy objectives were met or not and the degree to which Historic, Economic, and Political Context • 237 all students are making gains regardless of race, class, gender, language, and country of origin. Stage Ten: The degree to which you have attempted to share findings from your analysis of student work with your students, their families, other teachers, and administrators to build a professional community and a sense of shared responsibility for more powerful student learning. Note 1 For analyses of race in the Progressive Era, see Leonard (2016) and Oliver (2014). Leonard analyzes the influence of Darwinism, racial science, and eugenics on the Progressive Era, documenting how reforms excluded and further marginalized African Americans and did little to challenge the legacy of Jim Crow laws. Oliver discusses the influence of W.E.B. Du Bois during this same period. References Cohen, R.D. (2002). Children of the mill: Schooling and society in Gary, Indiana, 1906–1960. New York: Routledge. Cohen, R.D., & Mohl, R.A. (1979). The paradox of progressive education: The Gary plan and urban schooling. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press. Darling-Hammond, L. (1993). Reframing the school reform agenda: Developing capacity for school transformation. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(10), 752–761. Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). Inequality and access to knowledge. In J. Banks & C. McGee (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 465–483). New York: Macmillan. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). No Child Left Behind and high school reform. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 642–667. Darling-Hammond, L. (2015). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York: Teachers College Press. del Castillo, R.G. (1992). The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: A legacy of conflict. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. Dewey, J. (1928). Progressive education and the science of education. Progressive Education, 5, 197–204. Fass, P. (1989). Outside in: Minorities and the transformation of American education. New York: Oxford University Press. Gebhard, M. (2000). SLA and school restructuring: Reconceiving classroom SLA as an institutional phenomenon (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley. Gebhard, M. (2004). Fast capitalism, school reform, and second language literacy practices. Modern Language Journal, 88(2), 245–265. Gee, J., Hull, G., & Lankshear, C. (1996). The new work order: Behind the language of the new capitalism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Harklau, L. (1994a). ESL versus mainstream classes: Contrasting L2 learning environments. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 241–272. Harklau, L. (1994b). “Jumping tracks”: How language-minority students negotiate evaluations of ability. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 25(3), 347–363. Harklau, L. (1994c). Tracking and linguistic minority students: Consequences of ability grouping for second language learners. Linguistics and Education, 6(3), 217–244. 238 Historic, Economic, and Political Context Hartman, B., & Tarone, E. (1999). Preparation for college writing: Teachers talk about writing instruction for Southeast Asian American students in secondary school. In L. Harklau, K. M. Losey, & M. Siegal (Eds.), Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL (pp. 99–118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Kaestle, C. (1983). Pillars of the republic: Common schools and American society, 1780–1860. New York: Hill and Wang. Lankshear, C., & Lawler, M. (1987). Literacy, schooling and revolution. New York: Falmer. Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2010). A synthesis of research on second language writing in English. New York: Routledge. Leonard, T.C. (2016). Illiberal reformers: Race, eugenics, and American economics in the Progressive Era. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Miramontes, O.B., Nadeau, A., & Commins, N.L. (2011). Restructuring schools for linguistic diversity: Linking decision making to effective programs (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social features. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–93. Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Ogbu, J.U., & Simons, H. D. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A culturalecological theory of school performance with some implications for education. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155–188. Oliver, L.J. (2014). W.E.B. Du Bois and the dismal science: Economic theory and social justice. American Studies, 53(2), 49–70. Olsen, L. (1997). Made in America: Immigrant students in our public schools. New York: The New Press. Raftery, J.R. (1992). Land of fair promise: Politics and reform in Los Angeles schools, 1885–1941. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. San Miguel, G. (1987). “Let all of them take heed”: Mexican Americans and the campaign for educational equality in Texas, 1910–1981. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Spring, J. (2018). The American school: From the Puritans to the Trump Era. New York: Routledge. Tyack, D. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159–180. Walqui, A., & van Lier, L. (2010). Scaffolding the academic success of adolescent English language learners: A pedagogy of promise. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. Winfield, A.G. (2012). Resuscitating bad science: Eugenics past and present. In W.H. Watkins (Ed.), The assault on public education: Confronting the politics of corporate school reform (pp. 143–159). New York: Teachers College Press. 9 PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER SFL in Action Meg Gebhard, Kathryn Accurso, and Grace Harris There is no way that [SFL pedagogy] is going to work with my students. They just can’t read and write anything beyond a basic sentence. They fall asleep in class and don’t really care about their education. Sometimes I really don’t know why they bother coming to school. – “Lauren Smith,” secondary ESL teacher, Milltown High While certainly not the norm, some teachers make highly disparaging comments about their students without fully appreciating the complexity of students’ lives in and out of school. Equally discouraging is that numerous research studies have documented that when teachers have low expectations, little respect, and not much empathy, they contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy (e.g., Nieto & Bode, 2018). Students who are especially vulnerable to these negative attitudes are those designated as “students with limited or interrupted formal education” (SLIFE). These students often come from war zones and have lived in refugee camps prior to seeking asylum in the United States. Others are undocumented students fleeing intolerable poverty, oppression, and forms of violence. In the past decade, many of these students have been undocumented immigrants from Central America who have survived traumatic experiences crossing the border and entering the United States. Other students designated as SLIFE are United States citizens who have experienced interrupted education because of homelessness. While there are no official numbers regarding how many students are classified as SLIFE, many schools are developing programs to meet the needs of adolescents who fit this description (e.g., De Capua & Marshall, 2015). One such program for ELLs was directed by Grace Harris, the third author of this chapter. Between 2015 and 2017, Grace collaborated with me and Kathryn 240 Putting It All Together Accurso, another SFL researcher and the second author of this chapter.1 The purpose of our work was to support the disciplinary literacy practices of SLIFE students at “Milltown High School,” a large urban high school in a former industrial city in New England. When our collaboration began, Milltown High served approximately 1400 students, with a graduation rate of only 57%. Nearly 90% were students of color and 63% were designated as economically disadvantaged. Of these students 38% reported that English was not their first language and 23% were officially designated as ELLs. In addition, based on consistently low state test scores, Milltown High was designated a “Level Four” school, meaning it was deemed “low achieving” and “not improving.” As a result of this designation, Grace was under intense pressure to improve test scores, but had few resources at her disposal to make this happen. For example, as discussed in Chapter Six, voters in Massachusetts eliminated support for bilingual education in 2002.2 In addition, Grace struggled to find curricular materials that were age and language appropriate because many of her students had not attended school consistently past elementary school. Therefore, many were not academically prepared in their first languages and were just beginning to use English for everyday purposes. Nonetheless, Grace’s students were required to take the highstakes exams in English language arts, math, and science after only one year of English instruction. Not surprisingly, most of Grace’s students were on track to fail, drop out of high school, and drop into a weak local economy that provided few opportunities for workers without a high school diploma. In an attempt to stop this from happening, our collaboration focused on implementing the expanded teaching and learning cycle (TLC) shown in Figure 9.2. We hoped to support students in passing high-stakes exams and earning a high school diploma, but we also wanted to provide them with a curriculum that drew on their linguistic and cultural resources and prepared them for opportunities available in Milltown. Based on our collaboration, we designed an action research project designed to explore the following questions: • • How did Grace implement the expanded TLC over two academic years to support her students in drawing on multilingual and multimodal resources in learning to read, write, and discuss disciplinary texts? How did Grace’s students’ literacy practices change over time as they participated in curricular units informed by the expanded TLC? To answer these questions, we begin by reviewing the central theoretical concepts presented in this book. These core concepts are represented in Figure 9.1, which graphically illustrates how we approached analyzing language and other meaning-making systems in the embedded context of Grace’s class at Milltown High at a time when U.S. immigration policies were shifting dramatically as result of the election of Donald Trump. Second, we document how we used this conceptual framework to design five curricular units guided by the expanded Putting It All Together 241 TLC illustrated in Figure 9.2. These units were designed to support recent immigrants in drawing on an expansive range of multilingual/multimodal resources in learning to read, write, and analyze specific genres in the disciplines of English language arts, science, math, and social studies. In the process of collecting and analyzing student work during this action research project (see Stages Nine and Ten in Figure 9.2), we conducted a case study of a Guatemalan student named “Valencia.” This case study illustrates that Valencia was able to produce longer texts made up of multiple, well-written paragraphs to achieve specific purposes (e.g., recounting, describing, reporting, explaining, and arguing). In addition, her writing showed a gradual increase in her capacity to produce texts about her personal experiences and disciplinary topics using more complex and varied clause structures, packed noun groups, and an expanded range of processes (verbs), participants (nouns and noun groups), and circumstances (word and phrases that construct time, place, and manner, see Table 9.2). Moreover, she was able to pass state exams in English language arts and math despite working long hours and contending with sweeping changes in U.S. immigration policies. We certainly do not make the claim that Grace’s use of the expanded TLC caused these gains, given the wide variety of language learning experiences Valencia had over time at school, at home, and at work. However, we do maintain that two aspects of the expanded TLC were relevant to Valencia’s evolving academic literacy practices in Grace’s class: (1) the availability of an expansive range of multilingual and multimodal resources for completing challenging academic tasks, and (2) the availability of model texts written in English to guide her reading and writing practices. We conclude this chapter with a discussion of the implications of this case study for teachers and researchers of ELLs’ disciplinary literacy development, as well as a praxis section. This section invites readers to use the expanded TLC to conduct action research projects of their own around the literacy practices of a language learner in the context where they work, are completing their licensure requirements, or are participating in a collaborative research group. Text/Context Dynamics in U.S. Public Schools: A Review of Key Concepts As illustrated in Figure 9.1, a social semiotic perspective of disciplinary literacy informed our collaboration in Grace’s class. As explained in Chapters Three, Four, and Five, this model of text-in-context dynamics draws on: (1) Halliday and Hasan’s understanding of language as a socially constructed meaning-making system; (2) Vygotsky’s understanding of development as a sociocultural process; and (3) a Freirean understanding of critical reflection as it relates to literacy practices in schools. This model begins with an encompassing definition of text as any oral, written, multimodal, or multilingual representation of meaning (Halliday & Hasan, 1989, p. 5). Texts can include talk, gestures, print, images, graphics, 242 Putting It All Together FIGURE 9.1 Text/context dynamics in schools (focus on genre and register) equations, charts, and the like. In addition, texts are sensitive to the embedded historic, economic, and political contexts in which they are produced and interpreted. This sensitivity is reflected in how all texts perform three functions simultaneously: they construct ideas or experiences through the ideational function; they enact social roles, identities, and power dynamics through the interpersonal function; and they manage the flow of information and attitudes through the textual function. As Halliday (1993) describes, texts accomplish this work through the specific field, tenor, and mode choices a language user makes when communicating about a specific topic, to an intended audience, and through oral, written, graphic, or computer-mediated means. In explaining text/context dynamics, Halliday and Hasan (1989) maintain that as children physically and cognitively mature into adults, the nature of the topics they communicate about, the people with whom they interact, and the modes through which they negotiate meaning expand dramatically. This expansion creates more choice within children’s functional meaning-making systems as they become adults who have developed their home language(s), varieties of languages used in the multiple communities to which they belong, registers associated with different disciplines in school, and the literacy practices associated with the work they do (Halliday, 1993; Halliday & Hasan, 1989). Building on Halliday and Hasan’s theory, Jim Martin argues that a central way children expand the meaning-making resources available to them is through Putting It All Together 243 the genres people are apprenticed to in and out of school. He maintains that as children mature and the meaning-making resources available to them expand, they are socialized into culture-specific ways of telling stories, describing experiences, explaining their thinking, and making arguments that reflect and construct the cultural contexts in which they participate (Martin & Rose, 2008). One of these cultural contexts is the public school system. As students develop disciplinary knowledge in language arts, social studies, mathematics, and the sciences, they are apprenticed to discipline-specific genres that use language and multimodal resources such as equations, graphs, diagrams, and images in identifiable and teachable ways (Rose & Martin, 2012). However, as discussed in Chapters Six, Seven, and Eight, public schools in the United States have historically not provided immigrants, students of color, and the poor with equitable access and sustained support for learning how to read, write, and critically analyze disciplinary texts (e.g., Tyack & Cuban, 1995). As a result, a disproportionate number of these students drop out of school every year and forego the benefits of a high school diploma (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 2006). As discussed in Chapter Eight, during the early 1900s, when immigrant students left school early, many did so deliberately so they could go to work in the nation’s growing industrial economy. Many were also able to pool their family resources to buy homes, participate in culturally and linguistically sustaining civic organizations, and gain a foothold in America’s middle class without a high school diploma. This type of social mobility was more available to White male immigrants from European countries who were less subjected to discrimination related to race, religion, and gender (e.g., Fass, 1989). Later, during the civil rights movement, U.S. courts declared discrimination based on race, religion, gender, and other learner differences, such as language, unconstitutional. As discussed in Chapter Six, the Supreme Court ruled that “same does not imply equal” in the 1974 landmark case Lau versus Nichols (de Jong, 2013, p. 104). As a result, schools today are required by law to provide all students with access and support for learning regardless of their home language, country of origin, or immigration status. Despite progress made during the 1960s and 1970s, research shows that schools continue to struggle to deliver on the promise of providing all students with an equitable education as mandated by federal law (e.g., Nieto & Bode, 2018). In addition, as discussed in previous chapters, factory jobs have slowly disappeared in the 21st century and there is a greater need for knowledge workers who can meet the demands of a rapidly changing and increasingly globalized and technology-driven economy. As in the past, these economic forces have placed new demands on students, their families, teachers, and teacher education programs (e.g., New London Group, 1996). In response, as discussed in Chapters Six and Seven, liberal and conservative policy makers have passed a series of game-changing reforms such as No Child Left Behind legislation (NCLB), the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), and the use of standards-based 244 Putting It All Together assessment systems developed by states and private companies to hold students, teachers, and schools accountable for meeting 21st century learning goals (e.g., McDermott, 2011). These goals center on teachers and students developing not only deeper content knowledge and associated literacy practices, but also learning to communicate effectively orally and in writing, working more collaboratively and creatively on complex rather than routine tasks, and using new technologies to solve problems in innovative ways. While few would argue with the value of these 21st century learning goals, parents, teachers, and educational researchers have identified a number of problems with the standardization and accountability movement. As discussed in previous chapters, these problems compromise the ability of teachers to prepare students for participation in an increasingly globalized, multilingual, and technologically driven world. Critiques of current reforms have centered on the following issues: • • • • • • • Disagreements regarding who should have authority over local schools (e.g., parents, school boards, states, the federal government, or private companies); A narrowing of the curriculum and the loss of institutional support for art, music, language instruction, recess, sports, and after-school programs; A loss of instructional time to make time for testing and test preparation, especially in high poverty schools; Higher dropout rates for ELLs, students of color, and the poor; Teachers feeling overwhelmed, unprepared, and unsupported; A lack of a commitment to bilingual education, and in some states, the passage of English-only mandates, despite the growing need for a multilingual/ multicultural workforce; and Government dollars spent on scripted curriculum packages and assessment systems produced by private companies rather than investments in teacher professional development and school infrastructure, especially in urban and rural schools. The Expanded Teaching and Learning Cycle (TLC) To respond to these problems, especially as they influence the education of students designated as ELLs, members of the ACCELA Alliance adapted the TLC. To review, the TLC couples Halliday’s theory of SFL with Vygotsky’s concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD). Vygotsky defines this zone as the distance between what a learner is able to do unassisted and what they are capable of accomplishing with guidance from more expert peers, teachers, family members, and other adults in their community (Vygotsky, 1978). This level of social, linguistic, and cultural guidance enables the building of students’ “scientific” as opposed to everyday ways of talking, reading, and writing about subject matter knowledge in their home language and additional languages (Vygotsky, 1986, p. 148). Putting It All Together 245 The concept of scaffolding is central to designing classroom instruction within students’ highly diverse ZPDs (Gibbons, 2003; Walqui, & van Lier, 2010). As discussed in Chapters Three, Four, and Five, scaffolding disciplinary knowledge and literacy practices for all learners is enormously challenging in the changing context of public schooling. It requires well-prepared and supported teachers to plan curriculum, instruction, and assessments that are linguistically and culturally responsive and standards-based. Research demonstrates that teachers can do this by carefully modeling and critically discussing how language and other semiotic systems construct meaning in the genres students are routinely required to read, write, and discuss in their content area (e.g., different types of recounts, narratives, descriptions, reports, explanations, and arguments, e.g., de Oliveira & Iddings, 2014). As illustrated by the teacher education initiatives presented in Chapters Four and Five, teachers can carefully guide students in noticing and naming how language, images, equations, and graphs construct disciplinary content (field), reflect the voice of an author (tenor), and manage the flow of information in extended discourse (mode). In addition, teachers can collect and analyze student work and reflect on student learning using SFL tools to determine the degree to which their goals for instruction have been met. Teachers can then use insights from their analyses to plan future instruction. Using these action research methods, teachers can collaborate to support all students’ disciplinary literacy development and their own professional development as they work for positive change in schools (e.g., Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; de Silva Joyce & Feez, 2016). As illustrated in Figure 9.2, ACCELA’s expanded TLC guides teachers in engaging in this challenging work through a ten-staged process of planning curriculum and assessments, implementing instruction, reflecting on student learning, and disseminating insights from their work to other educators. This version of the TLC builds on the groundbreaking work of other SFL scholars and teacher educators (e.g., Derewianka & Jones, 2016; Rose & Martin, 2012; Schleppegrell, 2004), social justice educators (e.g., Freire, 1993; Nieto & Bode, 2018), and curriculum design experts (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Text/Context Dynamics in Milltown, Massachusetts To understand our approach to using the expanded TLC in Grace’s class, it is important to understand how the context of Milltown influenced the textual practices of Grace’s students. Grace’s class was comprised of approximately 20 students from Guatemala, Mexico, Iraq, Vietnam, Rwanda, and Jamaica. These students spoke varieties of Spanish, Mam (a Mayan language), Arabic, Vietnamese, Kinyarwanda, and Jamaican Creole. All students were considered WIDA level 1 or having beginning levels of English proficiency (Table 6.2). While some were literate in their first languages, all had interrupted formal education in their home countries, especially those who were refugees from the Middle East or undocumented immigrants from Central America. 246 Putting It All Together FIGURE 9.2 The expanded teaching and learning cycle (TLC) The range of languages spoken in Grace’s class is indicative of a dramatic shift in Milltown’s demographics over the last 50 years. For example, up until the mid-1900s, immigrant families came mostly from French-speaking Canada, England, Ireland, Italy, and Poland. These White European immigrants found factory jobs working for Milltown’s leading employer, the “National Milltown Armory,” which provided firearms to the expanding military up until 1969 when it was decommissioned. Following national trends, in the 1970s and 1980s other factories in the region also began to close. White middle-class families moved to the suburbs and new families, mostly from Puerto Rico arrived. Over time, families from other parts of world began making Milltown their home, including people from the Caribbean, Central America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. In addition, as steady factory work has disappeared, the remaining jobs in Milltown tend to be found in the healthcare industry. Most of these jobs require post-secondary education, an ability to use digital technologies, and an ability to Putting It All Together 247 communicate effectively orally and in writing, particularly in Spanish and English given changes in the city’s demographics. In 2015, in light of the context in which Grace’s students lived and would most likely attempt to find work, we began an action research project that focused on four main goals: (1) to make better use of students’ linguistic and cultural resources in designing standards-based curriculum; (2) to set high expectations for students and even higher expectations for ourselves in regard to scaffolding disciplinary literacy practices to assist students in developing their interests and graduating from high school; (3) to reflect on changes in students’ literacy practices over time; and (4) to share insights from our work with others to support our continued professional development and contribute to the professional development of others. Teaching and Researching ELLs’ Disciplinary Literacy Development at Milltown High Over two academic years (2015–2016 and 2016–2017), we collaborated using the expanded TLC to design, implement, and collect data from five curricular units: two aligned with standards in English language arts, one with standards in science, one with standards in math, and one with standards in social studies. Each unit lasted approximately four weeks and was designed to apprentice students to reading, writing, and discussing a target disciplinary topic using discipline-specific literacy practices. The following sections provide a discussion of how we approached each stage of the expanded TLC. Using qualitative case study methods, we document how we planned instruction during Stages One and Two; implemented scaffolding practices during Stages Three through Eight; and critically reflected on changes in one student’s literacy practices to share findings from this action research project during Stages Nine and Ten as illustrated in Figure 9.2.3 Planning: Stages One and Two of the Expanded TLC Reflective of Stages One and Two, we collaboratively planned how Grace implemented and assessed linguistically and culturally responsive disciplinary literacy instruction in her class. The genres we targeted, the content we focused on, and the materials we designed reflect certain decisions we made during these stages. First, given that students needed to pass state exams in English language arts, math, and science by being able to read and write a wide variety of genres, we did not have the luxury of focusing on just one or two genres incrementally over time, which would have been preferable (Brisk, 2014). Rather, we aimed to build students’ capacity to read, write, and analyze increasingly dense texts across different disciplines and genres over time. This need led us to focus on helping students gradually make sense of more complex and varied clause 248 Putting It All Together structures, long and packed noun groups, and different types of processes, participants, and circumstances. In line with evidence from SFL scholarship (e.g., Christie & Derewianka, 2008), we attempted to achieve this goal by first planning units that supported students in analyzing how personal experiences are constructed in English. We then progressed toward exploring how more abstract and technical meanings are constructed through dense, more complex clause structures, more technical word choices, and discipline-specific uses of graphics (e.g., timelines, pie charts, bar graphs, graphic representations of molecules). Second, we wanted to support students in using multilingual resources as much as possible in making sense of their experiences and in producing disciplinary knowledge despite the passage of an English-only mandate in the state at the time. Central to this goal was planning curriculum and instruction that encouraged students to draw on their home languages in analyzing how English makes meaning in challenging texts, particularly during text deconstruction and construction phases (Harman & Khote, 2018).4 Third, we wanted students to develop a keener awareness of how graphics are used in disciplinary texts to support them in being able to read and produce multimodal texts in different disciplines, especially math and science (Unsworth, 2001). And last, in designing these units and lesson plans we were careful to identify the specific state standards we were addressing given the high levels of surveillance at Milltown High because of students’ low test scores (e.g., announced and unannounced classroom observations conducted by building and state administrators). The result of our planning sessions was a curriculum packet for each of the five units that reflected these decisions. We shared these packets with students, families, administrators, other ESL teachers in Milltown, and UMass pre-service teachers who were completing pre-practicum requirements in Grace’s class. Each packet included the following materials: • • • A coversheet that stated the purpose of the unit, the type of text students were going to produce and for whom, a weekly schedule of activities required for completing the unit, and a list of standards the unit addressed. Drawing on the multilingual repertoires of faculty at Milltown and pre-service teachers at UMass, coversheets were translated into Spanish and Arabic whenever possible, given that most students spoke one of these two languages. Model texts that were carefully selected to support the development of targeted content knowledge and disciplinary literacy practices. Given that students were new to reading and writing in English, we opted to produce many of these texts ourselves to ensure they supported the objectives of the unit and were appropriate for students’ levels of English proficiency. An overview of the target genre, its structure, and some typical register choices authors make when constructing this genre. We created these one-page overviews based on our analysis of the genre and register features of the model texts we provided, which reflected our content and language objectives (see Chapter Four Putting It All Together 249 and Five praxis sections). Importantly, these overviews did not list every register feature found in the model texts we prepared, but only those features that were essential to the goals of instruction for that unit (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Thus, in addition to being handy reference guides for students, these overviews anchored our instruction and assessment practices. For example, Figure 9.3 shows an overview of the genre of math reports from a unit that FIGURE 9.3 One page overview of the genre of math reports (sample from student curriculum packet) 250 Putting It All Together focused on analyzing survey data using descriptive statistics, the fourth unit we planned, which was taught in the second year of the study. In reviewing this example, it is important to note that after participating in several units, students came to rely on these overviews, which constituted a genre in themselves. In addition, like all genres introduced in Grace’s class, students were not expected to read these overviews independently given their beginning levels of English proficiency. Rather, Grace guided students in making sense of these overviews with the help of multilingual paraprofessionals and UMass pre-service teachers. FIGURE 9.4 Rubric for peer, self, and teacher assessment of student math reports (sample from student curriculum packet) Putting It All Together 251 • • A rubric that specified how students’ final projects would be assessed in regard to each unit’s content and disciplinary literacy objectives (see Figure 9.4, which shows the rubric from the math unit). We designed these rubrics to align with the model texts, and therefore with the genre and register features explicitly outlined in the one-page overviews. Each rubric included only those genre and register features that we planned to explicitly scaffold during Stages Three through Five. Students were introduced to the rubric early in each unit and used it to support peer feedback and self-assessment before Grace used it to assign grades. In this way, we designed the rubric to be yet another scaffolding tool that drew students’ attention to the key genre stages and register features upon which their work would be evaluated. Further, by presenting rubrics early in each unit and coming back to them often, we attempted to make our methods of assessment very predictable, which can influence students’ motivation for participating in assessment activities (Spaulding, 1995). Finally, as a way of cultivating academic investments and student identities (Norton, 1995) we gave students credit for the ways they invested in their work by doing such things as putting their name and the date on their work, following written directions, giving feedback, and using feedback to improve the quality of their work. Last, it is important to note that Grace used other forms of assessment including quizzes, unit exams, midterms, and final exams in ways that complemented the rubrics we collaboratively designed to assess students’ writing. Activities to build background knowledge. Each packet contained a list of handson activities designed to develop students’ background knowledge before we assigned challenging reading and writing tasks during Stage Three. For example, for the math unit, students were first introduced to the concept of a survey and took online surveys in groups before deciding on a topic to explore using this method of data collection. During the autobiography unit, students viewed and discussed photographs of Grace growing up prior to being guided in reading her model autobiography. During the poetry unit, students watched performances of spoken word poems that mixed Spanish, English, and Arabic. During the science unit, students worked in groups using a variety of languages to describe the color, texture, smell, and taste of substances such as coffee, sugar, salt, and water before building models of molecules present in these substances with clay and toothpicks. They also took a field trip to the Chemistry department at UMass where they manipulated giant interactive molecular models to notice different aspects of chemical structures in 3D.5 And last, during the social studies unit, students watched and discussed a video about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a large mass of floating debris in the Pacific Ocean, before being guided in reading explanations regarding the causes of the garbage patch and approaches to cleaning it up. 252 • • • Putting It All Together Annotated model texts, reading guides, and graphic organizers to scaffold reading and writing. These materials (literally) highlighted the key genre stages and register choices students were expected to notice and discuss in learning new content knowledge and literacy practices. For example, Table 9.1 shows a model text from our math unit alongside an annotated version of the same model text. The annotated model was used throughout the unit to highlight key genre and register choices the authors of the model text made in constructing statistical reports of survey data. Importantly, we used the same annotated model texts, reading guides, and graphic organizers to scaffold both reading and writing. This repetition was intentional and an important aspect of the design of each unit for a number of reasons. First, the use of the same classroom routines, procedures, and handouts supported students in knowing what to expect and what was expected of them. Establishing predictable school-based literacy routines was an important feature of the curriculum given that Grace’s students had interrupted educations. In addition, the use of the same graphic organizers to scaffold reading and writing practices created opportunities for students to re-read and re-analyze how model texts were constructed as they produced texts of their own. Information regarding independent construction. Each packet contained information regarding how students, working in collaborative multilingual groups, were required to support one another in drafting, revising, and editing their final texts, including using the rubric to give peer feedback and self-assess their own work. Information regarding final presentations of students’ work to a wider audience of their peers, teachers and staff at Milltown High, and guests from UMass. These events were an important part of the curriculum we designed as they celebrated students’ accomplishments, created a sense of community within and beyond the classroom, and provided an authentic audience for students’ work. It is important to note that in planning units that covered a broad range of content topics and genres, we sometimes collaborated with teachers who were content area experts. For example, given that no member of our research team had any experience teaching mathematics, to plan the math unit, we consulted an experienced secondary math teacher named Stephanie Purington. Stephanie’s content knowledge and her intuitive sense of what a good analytical report of survey data might look like combined with our knowledge of SFL to support the design of curricular goals and materials. To describe how our Stage One and Two planning came alive, we next provide examples of how we translated theoretical concepts into specific teaching and learning practices over the course of implementing the five units. TABLE 9.1 Model Text and Annotated Model Text (samples from student curriculum packet) Model text – math report poster Annotated model text 254 Putting It All Together Teaching and Learning: Stages Three Through Eight of the Expanded TLC Autobiography The first unit focused on English language arts standards and the genre of autobiography. The packet targeted and scaffolded the following genre features: a cover page with a title, name, and date; a dedication page (optional); a paragraph regarding past events in students’ lives; a paragraph describing students’ present identities as ninth graders at Milltown High; and a paragraph regarding who they hoped to become in the future. Students were introduced to these genre stages during lessons where we modeled reading by deconstructing sample autobiographies produced by Grace, Meg, and several pre-service teachers (Stage Four). In addition, during these guided reading lessons, Grace drew students’ attention to specific register features that were outlined in the unit curriculum packet. These features including the use of “doing” and “being” verbs or processes to convey what a person did in the past, who they are now, and who they want to be in the future (see Table 5.2 for a review of process types). Grace also drew students’ attention to the use of circumstances of time, manner, and place to guide them in noticing how writers add details to their sentences to make clear “who did what to whom under what circumstances” using clear sentences made up of one complete clause (Thompson, 2014, p. 32; see Table 5.1 for a review of clause types). As students transitioned to writing during the joint construction stage (Stage Five), Grace guided them in brainstorming the language they needed to develop to complete this unit. Using their home languages, English, bilingual dictionaries, and technology tools (e.g., Google Translate) students created lists of nouns or participants to support them in learning new language to describe themselves and other important people, places, and things in their lives. Second, students brainstormed a list of “doing” verbs to convey what they did in the past, what they do every day as in the present, and what they hope to do in the future. Grace also taught students the various forms of two common “relational” verbs, to be and to have, given the importance of these verbs in constructing information in everyday and disciplinary texts. Third, students brainstormed lists of circumstances of time, manner, and place to support them in adding details to their sentences and managing the flow of information through the use of prepositional phrases such as in 2000, in 2010, now, next year, in five years. With reference to multimodality, students also produced illustrated timelines of events to support them in conceptualizing and noticing how past, present, and future events are constructed grammatically in English (see Table 3.1 for a review of some English tenses). The ability to notice and use a wider range of English tenses was a department goal for the academic year. Therefore, in this unit, we targeted the simple past, simple present, and simple future tenses. Given Putting It All Together 255 the variation in students’ English proficiency, for some, this was review and for others, this was very new. Regardless of their backgrounds, all students were able to construct detailed timelines independently during Stage Six of the expanded TLC. However, students had varying degree of success in producing coherent written paragraphs, opting instead to produce lists of sentences. Poetry The second unit focused on English language arts standards and the genre of lyric poetry to express and describe emotions. This unit was designed around model poems written by other SLIFE students in Milltown. These poems were produced in the context of a previous action research project conducted by Mary Wright and Drew Habana Hafner, two former ACCELA participants. The curriculum packet we provided Grace’s students included selected poems from Mary’s class, as well as Spanish and Arabic translations of these poems produced by multilingual UMass students.6 These multilingual examples of student writing served as model texts, including the following poem written by an eighth grade SLIFE student who had missed much of middle school because of transience and homelessness: Lost by “Javier” The planet is quiet Part of my life is gone And that is not good I feel like a stashed stone in a suitcase Perdido por Javier El planeta está en silencio Parte de mi vida se ha ido Y eso no es bueno Me siento como una piedra escondida en una maleta ﺿﺎﺋﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺇﻋﺪﺍﺩ ﺧﺎﻓﻴﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻛﺐ ﻫﺎﺩﻱء ﺟﺰء ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻲ ﻣﻀﻰ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻻ ﻳُﻔﺮِﺡ ﺃﺷﻌﺮ ﻭﻛﺄﻧﱢﻲ ﺣﺼﺎﺓ ﻣﺨﻔﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺣﻘﻴﺒﺔ 256 Putting It All Together The genre stages we highlighted to support students in reading, writing, and discussing these poems included: a title with the name of the author, a description of an emotion using literal and figurative language such as similes or metaphors, and a reflection or reaction to this emotion. In regard to register features, we again drew students’ attention to different types of verbs, including “saying” verbs that also convey feelings (e.g., screamed, moaned, laughed ). We also guided students in noticing how poets repeat words and sounds to support textual flow and to consider using this literary device in their writing (e.g., “I feel like a stashed stone in a suitcase”). Last, we guided students in paying close attention to images and how the selection of an image can support or distract from what authors want to convey through their poetry. As a way of further scaffolding students’ development of these target literacy practices, we returned to specific genre stages (e.g., a title with the name of the author, a stanza that describes an emotion, a stanza that reacts to this emotion) and register features (e.g., the use of varied types of processes, participants, and circumstances; use of similes, metaphors, and figurative language) during Stage Six, independent construction. During Stage Seven, when students presented their poems to the class, we encouraged audience members to ask questions about the images each student chose and how these contributed to the meaning being conveyed. During Stage Eight, we used a rubric specific to this unit to evaluate students’ final poems. Scientific descriptions To guide students in developing the ability to read and produce a greater variety of genres, the third unit focused on scientific descriptions. Building on the genre knowledge students had developed thus far, we discussed how scientific language is very different from narrative or poetic language in four specific ways. First, unlike language that describes personal experiences, feelings, and beliefs, scientific descriptions are typically designed to convey factual and generalizable information. To do this, scientific descriptions use technical language to construct abstract classification systems and long noun groups that pack information into clauses. Second, scientific texts tends to construct a more detached and authoritative voice that aims to construct scientific objectivity by using more declarative statements and limited use of emotional, evaluative, and judgmental language relative to texts that make up the language arts and social studies curriculum (see Table 5.8 for a review of appraisal resources). Third, scientific texts rely heavily on “being” and “having” processes to define a phenomenon and classify it based on a description of its features. And last, scientific descriptions tend to use specific cohesive devises to support the construction of different kinds of classification systems and cause/effect relationships that differ from the way circumstances are used in other genres such as personal narratives (see Table 4.2 for a review of different genres and their register features). To support Grace’s students in beginning to notice these linguistic differences and hopefully become more prepared for general science classes, we required them Putting It All Together 257 to create and present an illustrated poster that had two paragraphs: a description of the chemical structure of a common molecule, and a description of a common compound in which this molecule is found. Given the newness of this content and the demands of the language used to construct it, we merged Stages Five and Six so students could jointly constructing their posters in small groups with guidance from Grace, the class paraprofessional, and UMass pre-service teachers. In addition, we encouraged them to draw on as many multilingual and multimodal resources as possible (e.g., clay models, a UMass fieldtrip, the chemical formula of the molecule, online resources in their home languages and English). Regarding combining stages, it is important to note that we also faced a practical problem related to time. If time had not been an issue, we would likely have continued this unit to include a separate independent construction stage where students were supported to produce scientific texts even more independently. Multimodal math reports The fourth unit focused on math standards related to surveys and descriptive statistics. In choosing these standards, we intended to apprentice students to reading and writing not just factual texts, but more analytical ones. Thus, this unit focused on guiding students in preparing and presenting a poster that displayed the results from surveys they designed, conducted, and analyzed with their peers (e.g., see Figure 9.3 and Table 9.1). To build students’ field of knowledge during Stage Three, before reading and analyzing model posters, we asked students to take a variety of short surveys we created using Google Forms. Despite our attempts to utilize technology, we ultimately printed these surveys and tabulated responses by hand on the blackboard because of the lack of working computers at Milltown High. We invited students to react to the results, and students began speculating about expected and unexpected trends. While we did not specifically target the language of speculation in this unit, we did nonetheless talk about these features of language in class (e.g., “thinking” verbs such as wonder, modal verbs and adverbs such as might and maybe, see Table 5.7 for a review of modal resources). In making decisions about which language features to scaffold and assess and which to weave in as we went along, we were guided by a desire not to overwhelm students with too much language instruction that might compromise the overall objectives of the unit. Balancing how much language to attend to was a tension that ran through the design and implementation of all the units. In making decisions, we were guided by work conducted by Australian SFL scholars based on long-term research projects they have conducted in schools with teachers and students (e.g., Christie & Derewianka, 2008). In regard to the remaining stages of the TLC, following established classroom routines, we presented model posters that illustrated how language constructed the content of the unit and we highlighted genre and register features of these 258 Putting It All Together models. Genre stages we highlighted included a general statement about the survey topic, a recount of the methods used to conduct the survey, a description of the results using mathematical concepts and graphic representations (e.g. pie charts, bar graphs), and an interpretation of the results. Building on earlier units, the register features we scaffolded included noticing and using a variety of noun groups or participants (see Table 5.3 for a review of participant types). For example, we continued to work on developing students’ ability to make sense of long, abstract noun groups, but we also introduced the idea of deciding when to use nouns and pronouns that construct human versus non-human actors. For example, in academic discourse, students need to critically read and produce texts that sometimes downplay human actors and sometimes shine a light on them with phrases such as the data suggests versus we think. In the phrase we think, human agency is clear, but the language ruins the whole purpose of the scientific method, which is to use scientific tools to make observations and come to data-driven conclusions, not rely on personal opinions. At the same time, we did not want to teach students to banish all personal pronouns from their writing in ways that led to the overuse of clunky passive constructions. Therefore, one of our goals in designing this unit was to support students in noticing the difference between “human” and “non-human participants” in what they read and to make strategic decisions in their writing.7 Arguing for Action on a Social Issue The last unit focused on social studies standards around conducting research to inform an audience and persuade them to action. This unit was designed by Grace and Jennie Schuetz, a colleague of Grace’s who taught many of the same students during the second year of the study when they were in grade 10. Grace and Jennie created this unit with no input from Meg or Kathryn, demonstrating that Grace was able to apprentice another teacher with no background in SFL to this pedagogical approach. For this unit, students were required to self-select a social problem, analyze the causes and effects of this problem, and argue for a plausible solution. They were required to present their arguments orally to their peers and invited guests using PowerPoint slides to support their presentations. As a model text, Jennie used a PowerPoint presentation she had created on the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. She printed these slides and during the text deconstruction stage she drew students’ attention to specific genre stages. These included separate slides that stated the title of the presentation, the social issue and its significance, an explanation of its causes and effects, a plan of action for addressing the problem, and a list of credible references. The register features students were required to notice in reading this model and in producing slides of their own included many of the same features of disciplinary discourse they had been introduced to during previous units. These Putting It All Together 259 included noticing how authors pack information into long noun groups, construct causal relationships, use specific cohesive devices to manage the flow of information, and use tenor resources in specific configurations to be both authoritative and persuasive. Though she was new to SFL, Jennie attempted to include these linguistic features in her model text, guide students in noticing and using them in their own writing, and assessed the presence of these linguistic features in students’ final projects during Stage Eight. Critical Reflection and Dissemination of a Case Study: Stages Nine and Ten of the Expanded TLC As part of critical reflection, we conducted a case study of a student named “Valencia.” We selected her as a focus student because of the challenges she faced out of school. Namely, Valencia had to work long hours to pay for living expenses and legal fees to straighten out her immigration status. As a result, Valencia often came to school visibly exhausted and occasionally fell asleep in class, a problem that provoked some teachers at Milltown High to make the same kind of negative comments that opened this chapter. Given the degree to which we believe many teachers misread immigrant students’ weariness as apathy for their education, we decided to focus our analysis on Valencia’s schooling experiences and literacy development. To accomplish this goal, during Stage Nine, we engaged in many of the same data collection activities described in the praxis sections of each chapter in this book. We conducted classroom observations and wrote field notes; transcribed audio and video data of classroom interactions; collected samples of Valencia’s writing; interviewed her formally and informally, and collected test score data. Based on our analysis of these multiple data sources, in what follows, we provide a brief case study of Valencia’s schooling experiences and a discussion of linguistic changes in samples of her writing over the course of her participation in the five curricular units we designed, thus accomplishing the goals of Stage Ten, dissemination of findings from our action research project. Valencia’s Navigation of Immigration Policies, Work, and School In producing this case study we learned that Valencia, the youngest of nine children, was born in Guatemala. When she was 16, she left home without her parents and entered the United States. The details regarding how Valencia traveled over 3,000 miles from Guatemala to Milltown are sketchy, but it appears she was detained at the border as an undocumented “abandoned minor,” although Valencia tends to think of herself as a young adult. Following Obama administration policies, authorities registered her as eligible to apply for “special immigrant juvenile status” through the family court system and provided her with transportation to Milltown. Once in Milltown, Valencia joined her sister working as a 260 Putting It All Together day laborer in the agricultural economy just outside Milltown. Valencia reported working six days a week harvesting potatoes, often for over ten hours a day and for less than minimum wage. While her goal was to contribute to household expenses, and perhaps send money home to her parents, she quickly found most of her money going to an immigration lawyer to help her obtain legal status and eventually become a U.S. citizen. When asked how much these legal fees were costing, Valencia replied, “Um, four thousand . . . Cómo se dice cuatro mil quinientos? [How do you say 4,500?]” Though it took nearly three years, Valencia was approved for “lawfully present status” in 2018. Her new status made her eligible for better health care benefits, a work permit, the protection of minimum wage laws, and in-state college tuition. Given that she wants to attend Milltown Community College and eventually become a nurse, this change in status has made planning for postsecondary schooling possible if she could pass state exams, graduate from high school, and save for tuition. To this end, as her English proficiency improved, she was able to get a job as a prep cook and then waiting tables, jobs that paid better than potato harvesting, were less backbreaking, and provided winter employment after school. However, Valencia’s path to lawful immigration status and more gainful employment took a toll on her schoolwork. The demands of working late hours to earn money left Valencia overtired when she came to school. In addition, following the election of Donald Trump and changes to federal immigration policies, Valencia and other students in Grace’s class became much more fearful that they or members of their family could be deported when they went to work, especially after a high-profile raid in a nearby city in September 2017. Valencia and another Guatemalan student named “Ramon” talked about the anxieties associated with managing their immigration status, working, and getting their schoolwork done. In a joint interview, Ramon, a particularly mature and astute young man, was very conscious of the ironies of immigrating, working hard to learn English, trying to get an education to have a better life, and then falling asleep in school. With resignation, he remarked that it was too late for him because of his undocumented status, but it would be better in the future when he had a family because his children could attend school with fewer worries and uncertainties. Valencia added that she tried hard to stay awake in class, but sometimes gave in to fatigue, especially when she did not understand what teachers were saying or what they expected her to do. When asked to say more about what kind of teaching practices helped her stay engaged, Valencia initiated a comparison between being assigned “projects” in other classes compared to Grace’s: 1. Valencia: No me gusta [name of class] porque allí hacemos muchos proyectos y siempre lo hacemos independientes, y a posición no lo entiendo (laughs). Y por eso no me gusta. [I don’t like that other class because there we Putting It All Together 261 do a lot of projects, and we always do them independently, and from the start I don’t understand it. And because of that I don’t like it.] 2. Meg: Ohhh. So there are projects, but you have to do them independently? 3. Valencia: (nods yes) 4. Meg: Okay. And how is that different from Ms. Harris’ class? 5. Valencia: It was very different because Ms. Harris, when she say we have to do a project, she – she make a project and then she show us how to do it and how to write on this yourself. .... 6. Meg: Could you tell us why it’s helpful? Like, if I have a new teacher here, or any teacher, who’s like, “They don’t need that (pointing to a curriculum packet). That’s not necessary.” Why does that help? 7. Valencia: It’s very helpful because, because . . . Ayuda demasiado porque nosotros vemos como ellos hacen sus proyectos. Y no es como copiar verdad? Pero nosotros tenemos una idea como hacerlo. Por eso, ya digo que sí. Nos ayuda demasiado. [It helps so much because we see how they do their projects. And it’s not copying, right? But we have an idea of how to do it. Because of that, I’ve said that, yes, it helps us so much.] In this interview, Valencia provides educators with her perspective on the importance of not simply assigning students challenging “projects” they have to complete “independently,” but of “making a project” or a model of what students are expected to do and then “show[ing]” them “how to do it.” In clear and straight forward everyday language, her words capture the essence of the TLC’s approach to scaffolding new disciplinary literacy practices by providing students with models and jointly deconstructing and constructing texts with students to make linguistic know-how, and therefore disciplinary know-how, readily available to newcomers. Changes in Valencia’s Literacy Practices A close SFL analysis of the final projects Valencia produced in Grace’s class give credence to her advice to teachers regarding robust forms of scaffolding. Specifically, Valencia’s literacy practices in Grace’s class reveals three main findings. First, she relied heavily on the annotated model texts in producing extended texts of her own. Second, during Stages Three to Eight of the expanded TLC, Valencia also relied on an expansive range of multilingual and multimodal resources in overlapping and productive ways to complete challenging written projects in English. These resources included gestures, graphics, curricular materials, highlighters, computer tools, her home languages, and English. And third, a review of her final projects shows that she was able to produce longer, more coherent content-based texts to achieve a variety of purposes using a variety of multimodal 262 Putting It All Together resources (e.g., timelines, images, pie charts, bar graphs, PowerPoint slides). In addition, she developed an ability to write more developed and coherent paragraphs that showed a gradual increase in her capacity to produce texts about her personal experiences and disciplinary topics using more complex and varied clause structures, packed noun groups, and an expanded range of processes, participants, and circumstances. Moreover, central to our interest in conducting a case study of Valencia’s literacy practices, she was able to make these gains despite working long hours and contending with sweeping changes in immigration policies, which is a testimony to her commitment to her education. To illustrate these findings, Table 9.2 provides excerpts from each of the five writing samples we collected over two years. The purpose of this table is to display changes in Valencia’s ability to produce longer, more coherent, contentbased texts using first an everyday, then a more poetic, and eventually a more academic register. In presenting these findings, we begin with an SFL analysis of the autobiographical text she produced in the first English language arts unit of our collaboration and then compare it with excerpts from texts she produced in the context of later units. TABLE 9.2 Samples of an ELL Student’s Texts Across Disciplinary Genres Unit Focus LANGUAGE ARTS Topic: Myself in the past, present, and future Genre: Autobiography Valencia’s Texts Typed Excerpt Past I was born in Guatemala. I lived in my community with my Family. I played with my sister and brother. I love my family. I stared school in 2006 I played soccer with my friends My friends is very intelligent. LANGUAGE ARTS When I’m Studying By Valencia B. Topic: Expressing experience and emotion Genre: Lyric poetry When I came to school I sit in my chair I open my book and I start to study I’m happy when I understand my heart Is cheerful I feel unique and gleeful But when I do not understand my face is sad My heart is broken I want to cry I want to sleep and that is not good Unit Focus SCIENCE Topic: Chemistry/ molecular structure Genre: Description MATH Topic: Surveys/ descriptive statistics Genre: Analytical report Valencia’s Texts Typed Excerpt What is Salt? The salt is in the form of small and transparent, colorless crystals . . . Salt is also called sodium chloride. Sodium chloride is an ionic compound having the chemical formula NACL and is commonly called salt. We surveyed 27 students in ESOL about their favorite cars. We asked the following questions: What is you favorite types of cars? We counted the total for each category and calculated the percent of each. If you look at the graph the tallest one represents the most. They are toyota at 33% ferrari at 26% and Honda at 10%. Lamborghini, cherverolets, and volkswagon are the least popular. The data doesn’t support our hypothesis because we predicted people like Lamborghini. We were surprised because we thought Lamborghini is nice but maybe it’s because Toyota is easy to fix. SOCIAL STUDIES Topic: Causes, effects, and solutions to issues affecting our community Genre: Argument Businesses companies clear wetlands because they want to put more buildings in the place where wetlands are and the residential companies they put houses in the places where wetlands are. The amount of pollution in wetlands is growing because farmers plant vegetable and they use chemicals. This chemicals can affect the health and reproduction of species posing a serious threat to biological life that’s why wetlands die. 264 Putting It All Together At the time Valencia wrote her autobiography in 2016, she was just beginning to produce full sentences in English as opposed to using single words, gestures, and intonation to communicate in school. Drawing on the strong forms of scaffolding provided in this first packet, the final text she presented to the class showed she was able to produce a booklet that included three sections: one about her past, one about her present, and one about the future. In addition, her text included images and an illustrated timeline. As the excerpt in Table 9.2 shows, Valencia was able to use English word order to construct simple, but clear sentence patterns such as “I played soccer with my friends” and “I lived in my community with my family.” These sentences construct everyday meanings through a predictable sentence pattern using common processes, one-word participants, and circumstances of manner and place. This work is impressive because it contains features that demonstrate Valencia’s movement toward a WIDA level 2 (see Chapter Six). For example, her writing displays an understanding of how to produce subject-verbobject sentences using the simple past tense of regular and irregular verbs with consistency (was, lived, played, started). However, an analysis of her text also shows she had only an emerging understanding of paragraphing in that she produced a list of seven more-or-less related sentences about her past. Over time and with instructional support, Valencia was able to produce longer texts made up of multiple, well-written paragraphs to achieve specific purposes (describing, recounting, reporting, explaining, and arguing). For example, a register analysis of her science, math, and social studies texts reveals that she was able to construct abstract content knowledge in these different disciplines using technical terms and more complex and varied clause structures. This ability is clearly demonstrated in the language Valencia and her group members used in interpreting the results from their survey of students’ car preferences. As illustrated in Table 9.2, they wrote “The data doesn’t support our hypothesis because we predicted people like Lamborghini. We were surprised because we thought Lamborghini is nice but maybe it’s because Toyota is easy to fix.” In constructing this well-developed short paragraph, Valencia and her partner “let the data talk” as opposed to giving their personal opinions. Drawing on supports provided by the expanded TLC, they were able to produce a multi-clause sentence in the negative using the causal cohesive devise because (e.g., “The data doesn’t support our hypothesis because we predicted people like Lamborghini.”). Compared to Valencia’s early autobiography writing, this demonstrates that Valencia and her partner, with scaffolding, developed an ability to use a broader range of cohesive devices (because), and not just report on their personal experiences, but speculate about the behavior of others (but maybe). This level of syntactic complexity and cohesion, combined with the use of discipline-specific vocabulary such as data, hypothesis, and predict, supported Valencia and her partner in constructing an authoritative disciplinary voice. In addition, over time and with instructional supports, Valencia developed an ability to pack noun groups with more abstract information as illustrated Putting It All Together 265 in the following sample sentences taken from her science, math, and social studies projects: Science: The salt is in the form of small and transparent, colorless crystals Math: We counted the total for each category and calculated the percent of each. Social studies: The amount of pollution in wetlands is growing because farmers plant vegetable and they use chemicals. In producing written language with these linguistic features, it could be argued that Valencia was simply copying academic language patterns, but perhaps not fully understanding it or developing it. Therefore, one question we posed to ourselves in analyzing student writing samples and planning future instruction was whether or not students were relying too much on the models we provided. However, in Valencia’s case, to quote her, she was not simply “copying” the models provided. Rather, we argue that she was noticing how language works to make meaning in particular kinds of disciplinary texts during Stages Three through Five of the expanded TLC and then repurposing targeted linguistic features for her own purposes during Stage Six. Other evidence supports our conclusion that her academic language proficiency was developing, including her scores on state and national exams. For example, over the course of our collaboration Valencia was able to pass, though just barely, the state exam in English language arts and math, but not science. Her WIDA scores also increased from 1.0 (low emerging) to a 3.3 (developing, see Table 6.2 for specific linguistic descriptors). We are not claiming that our use of the expanded TLC caused Valencia to pass high-stakes exam and improve her WIDA scores. After all, during this time, she also had a wide variety of other literacy experiences in and outside of school. For example, at home, in her community, and at work we are sure she read, wrote, and talked about a wide range of texts that also collectively supported her overall literacy development during the two years of this study (e.g., participating in social media, interacting with bosses and customers, interacting with the immigration court system). However, based on a side-by-side analysis of the materials provided in our curriculum packets, Valencia’s use of these materials in classroom interactions, and samples of her writing, we maintain that two aspects of expanded TLC were highly relevant to her evolving academic literacy practices in Grace’s class: (1) the availability of an expansive range of multilingual and multimodal resources for completing challenging academic tasks, and (2) the availability of model texts written in English to guide her reading and writing practices. Implications for Classroom Practice and Research Our analysis of Valencia’s literacy development over two years signals a host of implications for classroom practice and research. However, in light of the rapidly 266 Putting It All Together changing and hard times in which many ELLs and their teachers attempt to learn and work, we make four points. First, we encourage educators to rethink some of the unproductive binaries that typically constrain the opportunities schools provide ELLs. These binaries include conceptualizing and teaching school-based literacy practices as separate domains of meaning-making practice such as speaking versus listening, reading versus writing, “social” versus “academic,” “L1” versus “L2,” and “language” versus “content.” In contrast, drawing on an analysis of Valencia’s literacy practices and research in the area of multilingual education, we encourage teachers, researchers, and policy makers to think of language and literacy development as a highly integrated social and cognitive process in which students draw on a wide range of contextually embedded multilingual and multimodal resources (e.g., Canagarajah, 2013; García & Wei, 2014; Wei, 2017). Second, we encourage educators to build on students’ multilingual and multimodal resources by providing them with much wider inroads into using disciplinary literacy practices for fuller participation in school, their communities, and the changing landscape of social, economic, and political life (e.g., Gebhard, 2004). Third, teachers can build these inroads linguistically by providing students with multiple model texts, deconstructing the linguistic features of these texts with a knowledge of how language and other meaning-making systems such as graphs, charts, diagrams, and the like work to make disciplinary meanings (e.g., Dyson, 1993; Gebhard, Chen, & Britton, 2014). And last, teachers can engage in these highly professional practices through collaboration with one another, various professional networks, and universities that can collectively provide multilingual resources, disciplinary knowledge, and support for action research projects, even in the context of school reforms that persistently valorize improved test scores and English monolingualism (see Chapter One). Summary This chapter opened with the voice of a teacher who misread her immigrant students’ fatigue as a sign that they were not invested in their education. To explore this misinterpretation and better understand how the complexity of students’ lives in and out of school influences their literacy practices in school (i.e., text/context dynamics), we presented a case study of a student named Valencia. This case study illustrates the concepts presented in this book and documents not only Valencia’s strong commitment to learning, but also her persistence in navigating the complexities of her immigration status, school, and work responsibilities. Using the action research methods outlined in the expanded TLC as a form of professional development for all who participated in this project, we documented how Valencia read, analyzed, and wrote a variety of genres over two years as she developed disciplinary knowledge and associated literacies. In addition, a close analysis of samples of her writing shows a gradual increase in her ability to produce longer, more coherent, discipline-specific texts Putting It All Together 267 using both a personal and more academic voice. Based on a qualitative review of curricular materials, classroom interactions, writing samples, and interviews, we maintain that two aspects of the expanded TLC were highly relevant to Valencia’s success in Grace’s class: the use of deconstructed model texts and the availability of multilingual and multimodal resources. Praxis Putting It All Together The purpose of this final praxis section is to support collaborative research groups in producing and presenting a well-developed case study of a multilingual learner by analyzing data they have collected during praxis tasks from previous chapters. Your group’s case study might focus on analyzing changes in a student’s literacy practices as a result of instruction, the influence of a particular school reform on student learning, or another topic related to changes (or a lack of change) in students’ literacy practices. Group members can use this case study to meet degree or licensure requirements and to participate in different professional development communities (e.g., presentations within a teacher-research group, to colleagues at school as part of a professional development workshop, at a conference). Task Directions and Topics for Discussion 1. Review data collection and curriculum planning activities to date. Each previous chapter was designed to focus on a specific aspect of these related activities: a. Chapter One: Identifying the interests and resources of group members, including disciplinary and multilingual expertise. b. Chapter Two: Creating a data collection plan to support the development of a case study, including an understanding of the context, samples of curricular materials, and samples of student writing. c. Chapter Three: Collecting a transcript of classroom interactions and analyzing the ability of classroom interactions to support literacy development, especially for ELLs. d. Chapter Four: Planning linguistically and culturally responsive curriculum using the expanded TLC. e. Chapter Five: Completing a genre and register analysis of a disciplinary reading you plan to assign as a way of further supporting curriculum development and your understanding of SFL (e.g., genre stages; specific field, tenor, and mode resources; graphic elements). f. Chapter Six: Continuing fieldwork regarding the experiences of a focus ELL in different classroom contexts. 268 Putting It All Together g. Chapter Seven: Analyzing the positive and negative aspects of school reform by interviewing teachers. h. Chapter Eight: Developing a historic, demographic, and economic portrait of the context where you are collecting data and making connections to the curricular unit you are developing using the expanded TLC. 2. 3. 4. Analyze your focus student’s emerging genre and register knowledge using SFL tools, similar to the methods we used to analyze Valencia’s writing samples in this chapter (see also the SFL analysis of emails in Chapter Four). Begin noting the presence and absence of particular genre stages and document your focus student’s use of field, tenor, and mode resources. Use Tables 4.1 and 4.2 as a guide. Select excerpts from your focus student’s writing samples and note changes, if any, in their ability to produce more complex and varied clause structures, packed noun groups, and an expanded range of processes, participants, and circumstances in constructing disciplinary knowledge (see Chapter Five). Begin drafting a qualitative case study of the literacy practices of your group’s focus multilingual learner. Consider using the following genre stages, which are conventional for constructing case studies. However, keep in mind that there is a good deal of variation in the genre and register features of this genre depending on its purpose and audience. a. Statement of the issue, topic, or problem being explored. This section establishes the purpose, rationale, and guiding questions for your case study. b. A brief description of the conceptual framework guiding the collection and analysis of student writing samples (e.g., sociocultural theory, social semiotics, scaffolding, genre, register). This section provides your audience with enough background on the concepts that guided your data collection and analysis to understand your analysis. Define key concepts you use in later parts of the study (e.g., what genre stages are if these show up in your data displays). The level of detail, as well as the register you use, will depend on your purpose and audience (e.g., peers in a teacher education program who have taken the same courses versus colleagues who have never heard of SFL and the TLC). c. A portrait of the context. This section supports readers in understanding where you collected data and key aspects of the context in which your focus student was participating in literacy practices. See Chapter Two for a discussion of the context in which a student named Celine attempted to learn to write academically while maintaining a sense of herself as a student of color. See also how we described the context of Milltown in this chapter. d. A portrait of your focus student. See Chapter Two’s description of Celine and our portrait of Valencia in this chapter. Note that your portrait may have more or less detail than these examples depending on whether or Putting It All Together 269 not you have secured signed consent to interview students and collect a wide variety of data. e. A description of your data collection and analysis procedures. Depending on your audience, this section may be more or less technical. In general, this section outlines what you collected and how you analyzed what you collected (e.g., conducted a genre and register analysis of student writing samples, looked for patterns). f. Statement of your findings. This section answers the questions guiding your study in a clear way. Review the guiding questions and findings presented in this chapter, as well as in other case studies you may have read. Notice how published authors present their work as you write this and other sections of your case study. g. Data displays and discussion. This section presents examples of student work that illustrate the findings of your study. For example, in this chapter, we used Table 9.2. Other chapters, especially Chapter Five, provided different kinds of data displays to illustrate different kinds of findings. For example, Figure 5.2 shows changes in a series of drafts one student produced to persuade her principal to reinstate recess, while Figure 5.4 and the subsequent transcript show other students’ reactions to a letter from the government. Once you decide on and create your data display, you need to help your readers understand what it shows and how it answers the questions of your study. As you interpret your data, be sure to entertain other ways of interpreting these data and the limits of the kinds of claims you can make based on your research methods. For example, see this chapter’s discussion of the limitations of our study. h. Implications. Based on your analysis, explore the “so what” question in regard to what your analysis means for concrete actions you will take as a classroom teacher, teacher educator, and/or literacy researcher. For teachers, these concrete actions should be very connected to how you plan, implement, and critically reflect on student learning as you work toward specific equity goals. For teacher educators, these concrete actions should relate to how you can better prepare teachers for the demands of classroom life, especially as they relate to supporting ELLs and other students who struggle with disciplinary literacies. And last, researchers can develop new insights into the nature of language, learning, and social change in context of school reforms. Notes 1 The study presented in this chapter was funded by a University of Massachusetts Public Service Grant during the 2015–2016 academic year. In addition to the authors of this chapter, UMass graduate students who contributed to this study included Jaime Carens, Brendon MacKeen, Marcie Moore, Reda Othman, Brahim Oulbeid, Marvin Quinones, and Luke Useted. 270 Putting It All Together 2 Though the English-only mandate was overturned in Massachusetts in November 2017, individual schools retained the right to provide English-only instruction. 3 Qualitative research is different from quantitative research in a number of ways, one of which is that it tends to ask more exploratory questions rather than test a specific hypothesis. 4 Ofelia García and other scholars describe the act of exploiting the meaning-making potential of one’s multilingualism as “translanguaging” (e.g., Canagarajah, 2012; García & Wei, 2014). 5 This aspect of the science unit was support by Dr. Craig Martin, a chemistry professor at UMass and the developer of the Molecular Playground. See http://molecularplay ground.org/ 6 I would like to thank Marvin Quinones and Reda Othman for their support in translating this poem. 7 Critical literacy scholars such as Hilary Janks (2010) and Mariana Achugar (2009) argue that students need to notice when agency is obscured for political and ideological reasons. For example in passive constructions, such as Estimates suggest six million Jews were killed during World War II, the grammar does not make explicit who did the killing. If a text, as a whole, tends to hide human actors, students can be taught to notice and discuss the implications of this feature of disciplinary discourse, especially in social studies texts. References Achugar, M. (2009). Designing environments for teaching and learning history in multilingual contexts. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 6(1), 39–62. Brisk, M.E. (2014). Engaging students in academic literacies: Genre-based pedagogy for K-5 classrooms. New York: Routledge. Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. New York: Routledge. Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling. London: Continuum Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). No Child Left Behind and high school reform. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 642–667. Derewianka, B.M. & Jones, P. (2016). Teaching language in context (2nd ed.). South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press. De Capua, A., & Marshall, H.W. (2015). Reframing the conversation about students with limited or interrupted formal education: From achievement gap to cultural dissonance. NASSP Bulletin, 99(4), 356–370. de Jong, E.J. (2013). Policy discourses and U.S. language in education policies. Peabody Journal of Education, 88(1), 98–111. de Oliveira, L.C., & Iddings, J. (Eds.). (2014). Genre pedagogy across the curriculum: Theory and application in U.S. classrooms and contexts. London: Equinox Publishing. de Silva Joyce, H. & Feez, H. (2016). Exploring literacies: Theory, research and practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Dyson, A.H. (1993). Social worlds of children: Learning to write in an urban primary school. New York: Teachers College Press. Fass, P. (1989). Outside in: Minorities and the transformation of American education. New York: Oxford University Press. Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Putting It All Together 271 García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Gebhard, M. (2004). Fast capitalism, school reform, and second language literacy practices. Modern Language Journal, 88(2), 245–265. Gebhard, M., Chen, I., & Britton, L. (2014). “Miss, nominalization is a nominalization”: English language learners’ use of SFL metalanguage and their literacy practices. Linguistics and Education, 26, 106–125. Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247–273. Halliday, M.A.K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5(2), 93–116. Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social semiotic perspective. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press. Harman, R., & Khote, N. (2018). Critical SFL praxis with bilingual youth: Disciplinary instruction in a third space. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 2, 1–21. Janks, H. (2010). Literacy and power. New York: Routledge. Martin, J.R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox. McDermott, K.A. (2011). High-stakes reform: The politics of educational accountability. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social features. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92. Nieto, S. & Bode, P. (2018). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (7th ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson. Norton, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9–31. Rose, D., & Martin, J.R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Sheffield: Equinox. Schleppegrell, M.J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Spaulding, C. (1995). Motivation or empowerment: What is the difference? Language Arts, 72(7), 489–494. Thompson, G. (2014). Introducing functional grammar (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Walqui, A., & van Lier, L. (2010). Scaffolding the academic success of adolescent English language learners: A pedagogy of promise. San Francisco: WestEd. Wei, L. (2017). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–30. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Q Taylor & Francis �- Taylor & Francis Group http://tayl o ra ndfra nels.com INDEX Page numbers in italics denote figures, those in bold denote tables. academic language, 94, 171, 174, 175, 180, 207, 212, 265 ACCELA (Access to Critical Content and Language Acquisition) Alliance 96–98, 112; and teaching and learning cycle (TLC) 98–111, 244–245 ACCESS for ELLs exam 175, 180, 183 accountability 111; see also standardization and accountability movement Accurso, K. 97, 239–240 Achugar, M. 93, 94, 270n7 action research 78; see also ACCELA (Access to Critical Content and Language Acquisition) Alliance; “Milltown High School” action verbs see doing verbs Ada, A.F., My Name is Maria 104 additive relationships 60 adequate yearly progress (AYP) 195 administrative progressives 223, 224, 233 adverbs: modal 135, 136; see also circumstances affective filter 52 after-school programs 225, 226, 233 Aguirre-Muñoz, Z. 93 Alim, H.S. 3, 51 Alternative Right 8 anti-bilingual education ideologies 198–201, 213 appraisal resources 131, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141 arguments 88, 91, 173, 203 assessment/testing 4, 108–109, 111, 201–202, 229, 244; Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System 110; high-stakes 4, 196–197, 198, 200, 201–202; reading 110–111; rubrics 101–102, 103, 251; Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) 201; of teachers see teacher evaluation; WIDA Consortium 164, 175–176, 180, 183–184, 185, 186, 201 attendance/attendance laws 226, 228, 234 attitude line 63–64 attitudes 58, 64, 65, 131, 136, 144 Atwell, N. 7, 53, 107 Au, W. 196, 208 audience for students’ work 107–108 August, D. 47 Austin, T. 97 autobiographies 254–255 Baca, G. 4, 200 Bailey, A. 174, 176, 179 Bamford, K.W. 198 banking model of education 93 Barratt, L. 179 274 Index Batalova, J. 4 Beach, R.W. 205 behavioral perspective 12, 46, 47–48, 65, 66, 67; drill and practice approach 12, 47 65; of grammar in classroom discourse practices 47–48 being verbs (relational processes) 62, 125, 254 Bell, J. 102 Berg, M.A. 93, 174 Bhabha, H.K. 98 Bialystok, E. 198 Biklen, S.K. 18, 39 bilingual education 13, 33, 169–170, 244; see also anti-bilingual education ideologies Bilingual Education Act (1968) 195 bilingualism, benefits of 198–199 Black Lives Matter 8 Blommaert, J. 28–29 Bode, P. 87, 98, 162, 239, 243, 245 Bogdan, R.C. 18, 39 Borg, S. 44 Boston College 95–96 Brisk, M.E. 45, 93, 95–96, 99, 112, 170, 173, 247 Britton, L. 101, 103–104, 108–111, 119–120, 129, 145, 266 building the field 87, 101–104 Bunch, G.C. 201, 212 California History Project (CHP) 94 Calkins, L. 202 Callahan, R.M. 30, 199 Canagarajah, S. 270n4 Capps, R. 4, 166 Carpenter, B.D. 93 Carroll, L., “Jabberwocky” 51 Carroll, P. 174 case study research 39–41; “Celine” 15, 24–39, 46, 199; “Milltown High School” 240, 247–265; “Valencia” 259–265, 266–267 Castellón, M. 4, 165, 166 cause 130 cause and effect relationships 60 Cazden, C. 46, 48, 64 CCSS see Common Core State Standards “Celine” case study 15, 24–39, 46, 199 Center for Applied Linguistics 175, 180 certainty, constructing degrees of 134–136 Chaudron, C. 47 Chen, I. 99, 100, 104, 109, 110, 111, 119, 129, 266 Chomsky, N. 46, 48–55, 66, 67 Christie, F. 32, 45, 46, 64, 68, 122, 124, 129, 248 Chung, R. 212 circumstances 122, 130, 130, 136, 138, 254 civil rights 168–170, 195 Civil Rights Act (1964) 168 class 162, 172, 209 class equity 68 class-based identity 29 classroom discourse practices 46; behavioral perspective of grammar in 47–48; psycholinguistic perspective of grammar in 52–53; SFL perspective of grammar in 61–65 clause and clause complexity 122, 123, 154, 247–248 Clewell, B.C. 167 Cochran-Smith, M. 2, 17, 111 code mixing and switching 30, 57, 105 Coffin, C. 143, 145 cognitive benefits of bilingualism 198 Cohen, R.D. 223, 224, 225–226, 227 cohesive devices 60–61, 108, 141, 145, 259 college and career readiness 203 Collier,V.P. 169, 198 Colombi, M.C. 173 colorblind perspective 162 commands 131, 132 commodification 196, 213 Common Core State Standards (CCSS) 1, 4, 56, 101, 164, 167, 174, 175, 186, 195, 201–209, 243; cost of implementation 208; demographics and implementation of 207; reactions to 204–209; teacher/ administrator professional capacity and implementation of 207; teaching materials alignment with 207–208 common schools 223 comprehensible input 172 computer-mediated teaching 204, 205 congruence 122 constructivist approaches 203, 208, 217n4 content knowledge/instruction 200 context: context of culture 83, 92, 112; context of situation 83, 92, 112, 122; see also text/context dynamics Cook, G. 179 Correa, D. 97 Index Cosentino de Cohen, C. 167 Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) 201, 202–203 creativity 1, 3 critical language awareness, 45, 54, 61, 62, 94, 105, 146, 173 critical reflection 109–111, 241, 259 Cuban, L. 13, 221, 243 Cullican, S. 92 cultural aspects of language teaching/ learning 199 cultural context, texts and 9–10 cultural deficit theories 227–228, 229, 234 culturally sustaining curriculum 3 cultural identity 51 Darling-Hammond, L. 3, 163, 168, 186, 196–197, 209–210, 211, 229, 233, 243 data walls 197, 198 Davis, K. 184 De Capua, A. 239 de Jong, E.J. 12, 13, 26, 169, 186, 243 de Oliveira, L.C. 45, 93, 94, 205, 206 de Silva Joyce, H. 45, 46, 245 declarative mood 131 deconstruction of texts 85, 86, 104–105 decontextualization, disciplinary texts 30, 32 deficit theories 227–228, 229, 234 Delpit, L. 54, 67 democracy 223 demographic change 1, 4, 165–168, 223 demographic differences, and implementation of Common Core State Standards 207 Department of Justice 168, 186 Derewianka, B.M. 15, 16, 32, 58, 59, 60, 62, 78, 85, 89, 104, 122, 124, 125, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 135, 136, 141, 143, 173, 245, 248 Dewey, J. 217n4, 223, 228, 233 dialogue 105 difference-blind perspective 162 discipline-specific language: and decontextualized meanings 30, 32; and everyday language, differences between 11–12, 30, 31, 32, 173 discourse 73n1 display questions 64 doing verbs (processes) 62, 125, 127–128, 254 Doran,Y.J. 58 drafting 54 275 drill and practice perspective 12, 47, 65, 93 Droga, L. 59, 60, 62, 125, 128, 130, 131, 135, 143 dropout rates 226, 234, 244 Duckor, B. 213 Dyson, A.H. 33, 34, 39, 107 Echevarria, J. 171 economic/social benefits of bilingualism 198–199 editing 54 Education Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA) 210, 211–213 Eger, W. 101 Eggins, S. 30, 31, 83, 142, 143 Elbow, P. 45, 53, 54 Ellis, R. 105–107 ELLs (English language learners): commonalities among 166–167; definition of 18–19, 165; diversity among 166; low expectations for 172–173; low level of institutional support for 167–168; non-immigrant 166; student population numbers 4, 165–166 emails 79–82, 84, 85–86 emotional aspects of language teaching/ learning 199 emotions 105, 128, 131, 136, 137, 138 English language arts 48, 94, 204, 205, 232, 254–256 English-only mandates 1–2, 4, 56, 169, 195, 198–201, 213, 244 equity: gap 196; gender 68; racial 68 Ernst-Slavit, G. 174 ESL program types 13, 170–173; push-in and pull-out ESL 13, 170; sheltered English immersion (SEI) 13, 170–173 ethics, research 18 eugenics movement 227–228 evaluation of teachers see teacher evaluation evaluations of things, see appraisal resources everyday language/meaning-making, and discipline-specific language, differences between 11–12, 30, 31, 32, 173 existential verbs (processes) 125 explanations 88, 90, 108, 173, 203 factory approach to schooling 3, 224–225 Fairclough, N. 2, 32, 66 Fang, Z. 30, 31, 45, 93 276 Index Fass, P. 16, 222, 223, 224, 225, 227, 228–229, 243 Federal Equal Educational Opportunities Act (1974) 168 feedback 36–37 feelings 58, 63, 64, 124, 128, 136, 145, 256 Feez, S. 45, 46, 245 Ferris, D.R. 36, 68, 150 field 58, 61, 65, 77, 78, 79, 80, 83, 84, 86, 87, 104, 112, 122–130, 133–134, 173, 242, 245 field of knowledge 103–104 Fitzgerald, B. 127 Flores, N. 45, 68, 199 Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System 110 Frederick, R. 185 Freire, P. 5, 17, 93, 97, 98, 241, 245 funding 195, 196, 200, 201, 229 funds of knowledge 98, 100, 107 future continuous 49 future perfect 50 future perfect continuous 50 future (simple) 49 Gándara, P. 4, 30, 167, 199, 200 García, O. 9, 26, 33, 270n4 Gary, Indiana, educational experiences of immigrants 225–226 Gebhard, M. 2, 3, 29, 36, 37, 39, 45, 55, 61, 62, 64, 68, 93, 97, 99, 100, 101, 104, 108, 109, 111, 119, 129, 141, 145, 146, 149, 163, 167, 198, 229, 230, 232, 266 Gee, J. 73n1, 230 gender 162, 172; equity 68; identity 29 generalizable participants 129 Genishi, C. 39 genre 9–10, 57, 78, 82–83, 92–93, 94, 95, 101, 173, 178, 243, 251 genre stages 83, 84, 85, 89–91, 102, 251, 256, 258 genre theory 88–92, 95–96, 100, 112 gestures 29, 30 Gibbons, P. 15, 92, 141, 200, 245 Giroux, H.A. 82 given and new information, weaving together of 141, 142–145 globalization 1, 4, 28 Godley, A.J. 45 Gottlieb, M. 174 Graham, H. 101, 145–150 grammar 12, 37–38, 39, 44–75; behavioral perspective 46, 47–48, 65, 66, 67; psycholinguistic perspective 46, 48–53, 66, 67; social semiotic perspective 46, 55–65, 66, 67–68; universal 52 grammatical mood 131–132, 133–134, 139 graphic organizers 252 Green, L.J. 48 Guthrie, J.T. 198 Gutiérrez, K. 34, 98, 172, 195 Hakuta, K. 33, 200–201 Halliday, M.A.K. 2, 5, 10, 24, 38, 45, 46, 55–65, 66, 67, 83, 124, 127, 132, 136, 150, 164, 186, 241, 242 Harklau, L. 163, 229, 231, 232 Harman, R. 45, 68, 93, 248 Harris, G. 239–240 Hartman, B. 232 Hasan, R. 2, 17–18, 38, 66, 83, 241, 242 Heath, S.B. 34 Herold, B. 208 Hiebert, E.H. 206 high-stakes assessment/testing 4, 196–197, 198, 200, 201–202, 213 hip-hop culture 51 history/historical texts 94, 127, 142, 145, 205 Huang, J. 93, 174, 176, 179 Humphrey, S. 59, 60, 62, 92, 125, 128, 131, 135, 143 Hyland, K. 54, 232 Iddings, J. 45, 205, 206 ideational function of language 10, 11, 14, 24, 36, 39, 56, 58, 61, 122, 242 ideational themes 144, 145 identity 29, 32, 132, 199; cultural 51; social 58, 131, 242 imagination 1, 3 immigrants 222–223; 20th century schooling 225–229, 233–234; 21st century schooling 229–233, 234; voluntary 227, 234; involuntary, 227, 234 imperative mood 131 individual differences, ideology of 223, 233, 234 industrial/factory approach to schooling 3, 224–225 informational texts 203 Index Initiation-Response-Evaluation (IRE) interactions 47–48, 64 institutional structures 13 intelligence testing 228, 233 interpersonal function of language 10, 11, 14, 24, 36, 39, 56, 58–59, 61, 242 interpersonal themes 144, 145 interrogative mood 131 involuntary immigrants 227, 234 Janks, H. 127, 270n7 Johnson, S.M. 210 Jones, P. 15, 16, 58, 78, 85, 89, 104, 131, 136, 141, 173, 245 judgments 136, 137, 138, 145 Kaestle, C. 222–223 Karp, S. 209 Khote, N. 248 kindergartens 225, 226, 233 Kirst, M. 206 Kleyn, T. 212 knowledge: construction of 18; funds of 98, 100, 107 knowledge workers 243 Kornhaber, M.L. 209 Kramsch, C. 32, 46, 199 Krashen, S. 37, 45, 52, 54, 66, 172 Kress, G. 9 Ladson-Billings, G. 98 language 29, 162; language acquisition device 52; academic language 94, 171, 174, 175, 180, 207, 212, 265; behavioral perspective on 12, 46, 47–48, 65, 66, 67; everyday and discipline-specific, differences between 11–12, 30, 31, 32; form-focused conception of 24–25; ideational function of 10, 11, 14, 24, 36, 39, 56, 58, 61, 122, 242; interpersonal function of 10, 11, 14, 24, 36, 39, 56, 58–59, 61, 242; mixing and switching 30, 32; psycholinguistic perspective 12, 46, 48–55, 66, 67; social semiotic perspective 46, 55–65, 66, 67–68; technologies and production of 51; textual function of 10, 11, 14, 24, 36, 39, 56, 59–60, 61, 242 language acquisition device 52 Language and Meaning Project 94 language proficiency, WIDA 176–177, 178, 183–184 277 Lankshear, C. 232 Lantolf, J.P. 88 Lau Remedies 169, 186 Lau v. Nichols (1974) 168–169, 243 Lawler, M. 232 learning, contextual nature of 38 Lee, O. 201, 205 Leki, I. 232 Leonard, T.C. 224, 227, 228 lexical chains 160n2 Lightbown, P.M. 12, 47, 48, 54 Lopez, F. 169, 198 Lortie, D. 184 Los Angeles, educational experiences of immigrants 226–227 Lucas, T. 4, 162, 168, 195, 198 Luke, A. 68 Lytle, S.L. 2, 17, 111 McDermott, K.A. 14, 195, 196, 244 McEneaney, E. 169, 198 Macken-Horarik, M. 62 McLaughlin, M. 4, 167, 196, 205, 206–207, 208 Macnaught, L. 92 McTighe, J. 100, 249 Mahboob, A. 179 maintenance bilingual programs 169 Mann, H. 223 manner 130, 254 marketization 196, 213 Marshall, H.W. 239 Martin, J.R. 9, 37, 45, 55, 58, 59, 62, 83, 85, 88–92, 112, 136, 242–243, 245 material verbs see doing verbs mathematics 204, 205, 249–250, 257–258 Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. 10, 60, 127 meaning-making 10–12, 45, 46; conflicts 28, 29; everyday and discipline-specific, differences between 11–12, 30, 31, 32 Menken, K. 4, 34, 183–184, 199, 200 mental verbs see sensing verbs metalanguage 61–65, 94, 124 Meuwissen, K. 212, 213 “Milltown High School” 240, 247–265; text/context dynamics 245–247 Miramontes, O.B. 233 Mizokawa, D.T. 198 modal adverbs 135, 136 modal nouns 135, 136 modal verbs 59, 59, 134, 135, 136 modality 131, 134, 135, 136, 139 278 Index mode 59–60, 61, 77, 78, 79, 83, 84, 86, 87, 104, 112, 141–150, 173, 242, 245 model texts 101–102, 248, 252, 253 Mohl, R.A. 223, 225–226 Moll, L. 98 Molle, D. 180, 181, 182, 183 Molnar, M. 208 mood 131–132, 133–134, 139 Moore, J. 61–65, 68, 94, 124 Morgan, W. 62 multiculturalism 167, 169, 186, 200, 204 multilingual students 26 multilingual texts 9, 10, 14, 31, 58, 178, 241, 248, 266 multimodality 9, 14, 31, 32, 45, 56, 58, 178, 204, 241, 243, 248, 254, 257–258, 266 multilingualism, benefits of 198–199 narratives 88, 89, 101–102, 105–106, 173, 203 National Board for Professional Teaching, certification 210, 211 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 4 National Governors Association 201 Native Americans 227–228 natural approach to second language acquisition 52 NCLB see No Child Left Behind neoliberalism 208, 217n5 Never Again 8 New London Group 2, 45, 167, 229 New York City, Progressive Era schools 228–229 Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) 56, 101, 164, 175, 204, 205, 243 Nieto, S. 87, 96–97, 98, 162, 239, 243, 245 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) 1, 4, 56, 163, 165, 167, 168, 174, 186, 195–198, 200, 202, 213, 243 nominalization 31, 141, 142 Norton, B. 251 nouns: modal 135, 136; see also participants Oakes, J. 2 observations 88 O’Day, J. 166 Ogbu, J. 227 O’Hallaron, C.L. 61, 94 Olsen, B. 198, 229, 231–232 opt-out movement 202 Ortmeier-Hooper, C. 163 Ossa Parra, M. 95, 173 Palincsar, A.S. 62, 94 Paris, D. 3 participants (nouns) 122, 127–129, 136, 138, 254, 258; generalizable 129; human versus non-human 258; tracking 119–120, 141 Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) 201 past continuous 49 past perfect 49 past perfect continuous 50 past (simple) 49 Pearson (company) 213 Pearson, P.D. 206 Pecheone, R. 212 Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT) 210, 211–212, 213 permeable curriculum 107 persuasive letters 138–141 Phyak, P. 184 Piaget, J. 217n4 Piedra, A.R. 101–102, 104–105 Pinker, S. 51 Pioneer Institute and American Principles Project 208 place 130, 144, 254 planning 100–101 play 3 PODER (Prueba Óptima del Desarrollo del Español Realizado) exam 175 poetry 255–256 Popkewitz, T.S. 185 possibility, constructing degrees of 134–136 poverty 209, 224 power dynamics 58, 131, 132, 242 Pratt, M.L. 28 praxis 17–19, 97, 98 present continuous 49 present perfect 49 present perfect continuous 50 present (simple) 49 Price, T. 212, 213 privatization 196, 213, 214 process approach to writing 107, 153–55 processes 122, 124–127, 136, 138, 254 professional development 4, 94, 95–96, 168, 196; inadequate 172, 173, 209, 229; Index and WIDA Consortium 164, 181, 182, 183, 185; see also ACCELA (Access to Critical Content and Language Acquisition) Alliance Progressive Era 221, 222–229, 233–234 progressives 196; administrative 223, 224, 233; social 224, 225, 233 project-based approaches 223, 233, 260–261 psycholinguistic perspective 12, 46, 48–55, 66, 67; of grammar in classroom discourse practices 52–53; and teaching writing 53–55 push-in and pull-out ESL 13, 170 questions 131, 132 race 162, 172, 209 racial equity 68 racial identity 29 Raftery, J. 226–227 Rampton, B. 29 Ramsey, A. 166 reading 205; assessment 110–111; modeling 104–105 Rebarber, T. 208 recounts 88, 89 reflection literacy 17–18 registers 83, 84, 85, 89–91, 95, 104, 112, 178, 251, 258–259; see also field; mode; tenor relational verbs 62, 254; see also being verbs research ethics 18 Rethinking the Teaching of English Language Learners (RETELL) initiative 168 Reveles, C. 181 revising 54 rheme see theme/rheme patterns Roeper, T. 48 Rosa, J. 45, 68 Rose, D. 9, 45, 55, 83, 85, 88, 89, 92, 243, 245 rubrics, assessment 101–102, 103, 251 Russell Elementary School, Boston 95–96 San Miguel, G. 227–228 saying verbs (verbal processes) 62, 63, 124, 125, 127 scaffolding 6, 87, 88, 151, 178, 245, 252 Schissel, J. 199 279 Schleppegrell, M.J. 15, 30, 31, 45, 59, 60, 61–65, 68, 93–95, 112, 124, 125, 128, 130, 131, 135, 136, 143, 245 school reforms 1–2, 4, 8, 13–14, 56, 213–214, 243–244; Progressive Era 221, 222–229, 233–234; Silicon Valley 229–231, see also commodification; Common Core State Standards; English-only mandates; high-stakes assessment; marketization; Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS); No Child Left Behind; privatization science/scientific texts 94, 122, 138, 204–205, 256–257, 258; tracking themes in 145–150; see also Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) Seger, W. 101, 108, 138–141 segregation 226, 228 semiotic mobility 28, 29 sensing verbs (mental processes) 62–63, 125, 127 sequencing relationships 60 Sexton, D. 198 Shanahan, T. 47 sheltered English immersion (SEI) 13, 170–173 Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) model 171–172 Silicon Valley, school reform 229–231 Silverstein, S., The Giving Tree 126–127 Simons, H.D. 227 Skinner, B.F. 46, 47–48, 66 Slade, D. 30 Slama, R.B. 4 Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) 201 social mobility 56, 167, 221, 226, 233, 243 social progressives 224, 225, 233 social roles/identities 58, 131, 242 social semiotic perspective 46, 55–65, 66, 67–68, 241 social studies 258–259 social/economic benefits of bilingualism 198–199 Sommer, D. 105 Spada, N. 12, 47, 48, 54 Spaulding, C. 6, 87, 251 Spring, J. 196, 201, 202, 208, 209, 213, 223 standardization and accountability movement 3, 8, 14, 96, 185, 186, 194–198, 213–214, 229, 244; and teacher evaluation 209–213 280 Index standards: WIDA Consortium 56, 101, 164, 175–176, 179–180, 182–183, 185, 186; see also Common Core State Standards; Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) standards-based classroom practices 100 Stanford University 211, 213 statements 131, 132 Steinem, G. 10 students with limited or interrupted formal education (SLIFE) 239 systemic functional linguistics (SFL) 2, 5, 37–38, 45–46, 55–65, 67–68, 77–78, 244, 245; ACCELA Alliance 96–111, 112; and California History Project (CHP) 94; in Language and Meaning Project 94; perspective of grammar in classroom practices 61–65; Russell Elementary School, Boston 95–96; translation of theory into classroom practice 85–86; see also genre; register Tarone, E. 232 Taylor, M., The Gold Cadillac 7 teacher evaluation 214; Education Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA) 210, 211–213; National Board certification 210, 211; Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT) 210, 211–212, 213; standardization and accountability in 209–213; value-added measures (VAMs) 209–210 teacher professional development see professional development Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) 170 teaching and learning cycle (TLC) 78–79, 85–86, 95–96, 112, 126, 240, 241, 247; ACCELA’s approach to 98–111, 244–245; in K-12 schools 86–88; and Martin’s genre theory 88–92 technology 204; and language production 51 tenor 58–59, 59, 61, 65, 77, 78, 79–80, 80, 83, 84, 86, 87, 104, 112, 124, 131–141, 173, 242, 245, 259 tenses 48, 49–50, 254 testing see assessment/testing Texas, schooling experiences of Mexicans and Native Americans 227–228 text/context dynamics 9–10, 30–32, 37–38, 56–61, 78, 79–82, 83, 241–247; “Milltown High School” 245–247 texts 241–242; cultural context of 9–10; deconstruction of 85, 86, 104–105; independent construction of 85, 108; joint construction of 85, 86, 105–107; multimodality of 9; see also multilingual texts; multimodality textual function of language 10, 11, 14, 24, 36, 39, 56, 59–60, 61, 242 textual themes 144, 145 theme/rheme patterns 142, 143–144, 145–150 third space 98 Thomas, W.P. 169, 198 Thompson, G. 122, 254 Thorne, S.L. 88 time 48, 49–50, 50, 60, 108, 130, 144, 145, 254 timelines 254–255 Times Up 8 tracking participants 119–120, 141 tracking practices 67, 229, 231–233, 234 tracking themes 145–150 transitional bilingual programs 13, 169 transitivity patterns 122, 123, 124 translanguage and translanguaging 106, 270n4 translingual students 26 Turkan, S. 163, 166, 167 Tyack, D. 3, 13, 16, 221, 223, 224, 225, 243 Uccelli, P. 180 universal grammar 52 Unsworth, L. 58, 248 Valdés, G. 4, 165, 166, 173 “Valencia” case study 241, 259–265, 266–267 value-added measures (VAMs) 209–210 van Leeuwen, T. 9 van Lier, L. 88, 232, 245 verbal verbs see saying verbs verbs: modal 59, 59, 134, 135, 136; see also being verbs; doing verbs; existential verbs; processes; saying verbs; sensing verbs vocabulary knowledge 180 voluntary immigrants 227, 234 Vygotsky, L. 6, 66, 87, 150–151, 164, 178, 186, 217n4, 241, 244 Walqui, A. 88, 200, 232, 245 Walsh, S. 64 Wei, L. 9, 26, 33, 266, 270n4 Index Westerlund, R. 182–183 White, P.R.R. 58, 59, 62, 136 why questions 64 WIDA Consortium 164, 174–185; assessments 164, 175–176, 180, 183–184, 185, 186, 201; language proficiency levels 176–177, 178, 183–184; professional development opportunities 164, 181, 182, 183, 185; resources 183; responses to 179–185; standards 56, 101, 164, 175–176, 179–180, 182–183, 185, 186 Wiggins, G.P. 100, 249 Wilkerson, J. 212 Willett, J. 93, 97 281 Winfield, A.G. 227 Wood, D. 6 Wright, W.E. 171, 195 writing 205, 232; modeling, through joint text construction 105–107; psycholinguistic approaches to teaching 53–55 Young, L. 127 Youngs, P. 211 zig-zag pattern 142, 143 zone of proximal development (ZPD) 6, 87, 151, 164, 178, 186, 244, 245 Zong, J. 4