Can I look at that?: Teaching writing using critical ...reflectivepractitioner.pbworks.com/f/Gruschow+C+l.pdf · Socio-cultural Theory - Vygotsky Socio-historical theory in psychology

Can I look at that?:

Teaching writing using critical literacy in an elementary classroom.

Christina A. Gruschow

St. John Fisher College

Can I look at that 2

Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................................... 5

Socio-cultural Theory - Vygotsky ............................................................................................... 5

What is Critical Literacy? ........................................................................................................... 7

Luke and Freebody‟s Four Tiered Approach .............................................................................. 8

Synthesis of Research ..................................................................................................................... 9

Practicing Critical Literacy ......................................................................................................... 9

Four Tiered Approach as Applied in the Classroom ................................................................. 10

Reading Social Issues Texts ...................................................................................................... 11

Social Narrative Writing ........................................................................................................... 12

Method .......................................................................................................................................... 15

Researcher Stance ..................................................................................................................... 15

Design........................................................................................................................................ 15

Setting........................................................................................................................................ 16

Participants ................................................................................................................................ 17

Data Collection .......................................................................................................................... 17

Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 18

Findings and Discussion ............................................................................................................... 18

Use of Everyday Texts .............................................................................................................. 18

Purpose for Writing ................................................................................................................... 20

Format of the Writing Assignments .......................................................................................... 21


Progression of Writing .............................................................................................................. 22

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 26

Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 26

Implications & Future Research ................................................................................................ 26

References ..................................................................................................................................... 28

Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 30

Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 31

Appendix C ................................................................................................................................... 32

Appendix D ................................................................................................................................... 33

Appendix E ................................................................................................................................... 34


Abstract

The purpose of the study was to observe the implementation of critical literacy in the

writing process in order to engage students in the process of writing. The research took place in

a third grade classroom. The research required me to observe as well as collect samples of

student work. The results indicated the use of everyday texts created opportunities for

conversation and supported students in their thinking. Everyday texts also allowed students to

recognize and use the texts to assist them in their writing. Limitations of the research consist of

the limited amount of time observing in the classroom. Implications for this study include using

everyday tests as a way to grab student‟s attention, as well as professional developments to

provide teachers with ways to include everyday texts in a lesson.

Introduction

During my student teaching experience as well as other interactions with various

professionals in education, I found that literacy is one of the weakest areas teachers, new and old

face in instruction. Specifically, getting students to think beyond the words on a page and

connecting their reading, writing, and their lives is an issue for which there must be a solution. It

is also important for teaching professionals to remember “…becoming „literate‟ means much

more than developing a hierarchal set of skills or achieving high standardized test scores”

(Schnorr & Davern, 2005). What is literacy? Literacy is defined as “an individual‟s ability to

read, write, speak in English, use a computer and solve problems at levels of proficiency

necessary to function on the job, in the family of the individual and in society…” (National

Institute for Literacy, 2008). Literacy is the ability to read, write, and understand what is read

and written, however literacy is a complex, multifaceted process that requires a wide variety of

instructional approaches. Today literacy is also knowing how to use knowledge and skills in the


context of modern life (Cohen and Cowen, 2008, p. 6). It is important for students to read and

write, as well as understand what they are reading and writing.

Heffernan & Lewison (2003; 2008), Vasquez (2000; 2007), Foss, (2002), Gammill

(2006), and Unrau (1992), suggest that using social issues and everyday texts should be

implemented and used to respond orally to texts as well as engage students in the writing

process. As teaching professionals, we need to implement critical literacy into the writing

process in order to engage students in the writing process.

Theoretical Framework

Socio-cultural Theory - Vygotsky

Socio-historical theory in psychology deals with social and cultural origins of

development. Socio-cultural theory is a concept developed by Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky

which directly explains the link between socio-historical approach to psychology and education.

Vygotsky addresses the main query as to how students learn, by asking, how students construct

meaning. Fundamental to Vygotsky‟s socio-cultural theory is the notion that social experience

shapes the ways that students think and interpret their world. This individual student cognition

occurs in a social situation, and is inseparable which corresponds with the integrated nature of

holism and the focus of socio-cultural theory (Jaramillo, 1996).

Vygotsky reasoned that the only adequate approach to the study of higher mental abilities

was historical, thus the proposed four genetic domains:

Phylogenetic domain, concerned with how human mention came to be

distinguished from mental processes in other life forms through the integration of

mediational means over the course of evolution


Socio-cultural domain, concerned with how the different types of symbolic tools

developed by human cultures throughout the course of their respective histories

affected the kinds of mediation favored, with it the kinds of thinking valued, by

these cultures

Ontogenetic domain, where focus is on how children appropriate and integrate

mediational means, primarily language, into their thinking activities as they

mature

Microgenetic domain, where interest is in the reorganization and development of

mediation over a relatively short span of time (Lantolf, 2000).

Socio-cultural theory recognizes the four genetic domains however; most of the research has

been carried out in the ontogenetic domain where focus has been on exploring the ways in which

abilities such as voluntary memory are formed in children through the integration of mediational

means onto the thinking process (Lantolf, 2000).

The zone of proximal development (ZPD) involves an “interdependent relationship

between instruction and assessment…while they are engaged in instructional activities” (Dixon-

Krauss, 1996; Jaramillo, 1996; Lantolf, 2000). Socio-cultural approaches to learning and

development are based on the concept that human activities are situated in cultural contexts, are

meditated by language and other symbolic systems of representation, and are best understood in

their historical context (Dixon-Krauss, 1996; Lantolf, 2000; Torres-Velásquez, 2000).

Socio-cultural theory argues that while separate, thinking and speaking are tightly

interrelated in a dialectic unity in which publicly derived speech completes privately initiated

thought. Thus thought cannot be explained without taking account of how it is made manifest

thought linguistic means, and linguistic activities, in turn, cannot be understood fully without


„seeing them as manifestations of thought‟ (Lantolf, 2000). In using socio-cultural theory‟s ideas

literacy can be viewed as a socio-cultural practice which means reading and writing can be

understood in the context of social, cultural, political, economic, historical practices in which

they are a part of, such as integrating „everyday‟ or „social issues‟ texts in the reading and

writing curriculum.

What is Critical Literacy?

Shannon‟s interpretation of critical literacy states critical literacy “empowers me to read

and write the past, the present, and the future – it offers me freedom to explore and act (as cited

in Heffernan & Lewison, 2000, p. 20; Heffernan & Lewison, 2003, p. 436). Comber defined

critical literacies as “people using language to exercise power, to enhance everyday life in

schools and communities, and to question practices of privilege and injustice” (as cited in

Heffernan & Lewison, 2003, p. 436; Vasquez, 2007, p. 7). Luke (2000) an influential researcher

of critical literacy, argues the idea of critical literacy is a place where students and teacher work

together and aim to “[(1)] see how the worlds of texts work to construct their worlds, their

cultures, and their identities in powerful, often ideological ways; and [(2)] use texts as social

tools in ways that allow for a reconstruction of these same worlds” (p. 453). Vasquez (2007)

writes that

A critical literacy curriculum needs to be lived. It arises from the social

and political conditions that unfold in communities in which we live. As

such it cannot be traditionally taught. In other words, as teachers we need

to incorporate a critical perspective into our everyday lives with our

students in order to find ways to help children understand the social and


political issues around them (Foss, 2002; Wilson and Troop Laman,

2007).

Luke and Freebody’s Four Tiered Approach

Luke (2000) and Freebody and Luke (1990) developed a four tiered approach to early

reading instruction. The four approaches are “necessary but not sufficient sets of social practices

required for critical literacy” (Luke, 2000, p. 454). A recent model gives the following

descriptions (Freebody & Luke, 1990; Luke, 2000; Heffernan & Lewison, 2003):

Coding practices: Developing resources as a code breaker

How do I crack this text?

How does it work?

What are its patterns and conventions?

How do the sounds and the marks relate, singly and in combinations?

Text-meaning practices: Developing resources as a text participant

How do the ideas represented in the text string together?

What cultural resources can be brought to bear on the text?

What are the cultural meanings and possible readings that can be

contrasted form this text?

Pragmatic practices: Developing resources as text user

How do the uses of this text shape its composition?

What do I do with this text, here and now?

What will others do with it?

What are my options and alternatives?

Critical practices: Developing resources as text analyst and critic


What kind of person, with what interests and values, could both write and

read this naively and un-problematically?

What is this text trying to do to me?

In whose interests?

Which positions, voices, and interests are at play?

Which are silent and absent?

Freebody and Luke‟s four tiered approach connect to socio-cultural theory being that “we

operate from the position that literacy is a social practice” (p. 15) as well as literacy being

“multifaceted set of social practices with a material technology, entailing code breaking,

participating with the knowledge of the text, social uses of text, and analysis/critique of the text”

(p. 15). Freebody and Luke (1990) state “a successful reader in our society needs to develop and

sustain the resources to adopt four related roles; code breaker, text participant, text user, and text

analyst” (p. 7). Freebody and Luke (1990) “developed [the four tiered approach] with particular

attention to reading, although [Freebody and Luke] would argue that many of [their]

observations apply at least indirectly to writing as well” (p 7).

Synthesis of Research

Practicing Critical Literacy

Vasquez (2007) notes starting points for practicing critical literacy and putting critical

literacy in to effective use with issues students raise:

“using language to, that, which appears, as well as to,

Question

Interrogate

Problematize

Normal

Natural

Ordinary

Re-design

Re-construct

Re-imagine


De-naturalize

Interrupt

Disrupt

Mundane

Everyday

Re-think

Re-consider

social worlds, spaces and

places”

(Vasquez, 2007, p. 10)

Vasquez and others argue that critical literacy offers a new approach for teachers and students

alike to explore and understand the students‟ everyday life in and out of school.

Four Tiered Approach as Applied in the Classroom

Heffernan and Lewison (2003 & 2008) as well as Vasquez (2000 & 2007) adapted Luke

and Freebody‟s four resource model enabled students to draw on a wider range of writing

practices. Students continued to be code breakers by figuring out the conventions of text and

text participants by using their cultural experiences to create meaning, additionally, students‟

became text analysts by representing and critiquing particular interests in their writing and text

users by writing fiction with justice themes in order to bring about change (Heffernan &

Lewison, 2003; Lewison & Heffernan, 2008). Vasquez (2007) attempted to proved opportunities

to examine the ideologies of everyday texts used in the classroom as opportunities to negotiate

meaning, participate as code breakers, text participants, text users and text analysis of everyday

social and school texts. Luke (2000) states it is important for teachers to remember the four

approaches are “necessary but not sufficient in of themselves” (p. 454). The model does not

propose a developmental hierarchy whereby one moves from coding to critical; from the basics

to higher order thinking; from initial reading to advanced literature study, lessons can addresses

the different dimensions simultaneously at the earliest stages of literacy education (Luke, 2000).


Reading Social Issues Texts

Social issues books are an integral part of a critical literacy curriculum, by implementing

responding to and analyzing whole-class texts, exploring books for pleasure reading,

participating in literature circles, sharing read-alouds, interpreting poetry, and engaging in the

writing process with her students (Unrau, 1992; Foss, 2002; Heffernan & Lewison, 2003;

Vasquez, 2007; Lewison & Heffernan, 2008). According to Lewison & Heffernan (2000 &

2008) social issues books are books that enrich one‟s understanding of history and life by giving

voice to those who have traditionally been silenced or marginalized. Social issues books make

visible the social systems that attempt to maintain economic inequalities, as well as show how

people can begin to take action on important social issues (Heffernan & Lewison, 2000; Foss,

2002; Wilson & Troop Laman, 2007; Lewison & Heffernan, 2008). “Everyday texts” as defined

by Vasquez (2007) are texts that are spoken or written as part of everyday life. The texts are not

“natural representations of the world they can be interrogated, deconstructed, and analyzed to

uncover different views of the world” (Vasquez, 2007, p. 7). The teachers‟ role in using

„everyday texts‟ is to engage the students in conversation as a way to have the students voices

heard in school and beyond. Then, it is the teacher‟s responsibility to support the students with

their writing as well as identifying helpful resources (Vasquez, 2000). Foss (2002) identified

three concepts that students‟ respective engagements fostered powerful reflections and

discussions in the classroom:

Examination of the educational institution of school and how it functions in

[the students] lives;

Identification of individuals‟ multiple subject positions and development of an

understanding that experiences, such as reading, are socially constructed;


Recognition and problematization of the privilege that permeates our lives.

Lewison & Heffernan suggest when a teacher reads disruptive texts and invites students to

discuss issues of race, class, language, and gender as part of their reader‟s and writer‟s workshop

students are invited to safely make visible a variety of social ideologies about themselves and

others within the institution of their school as well as be willing to go where the students

conversation leads (Vasquez, 2000; Vasquez, 2007; Wilson & Troop Laman, 2007; Lewison &

Heffernan, 2008). Along with social issue texts critical incidents also create an opportunity for

conversations and assist students in thinking about an issue in a different manor (Vasquez, 2000;

Foss, 2000). What are critical incidents? Critical incidents is an event that reflects an “issue of

social justice and equality, defined as any issues that results in the marginalization,

disenfranchisement, disadvantage, or oppression of individuals, groups, or comities” (Vasquez,

2000). Students‟ insightful interpretations, the powerful connections to other books, and the

thoughtful ideas that students share foster true dialogue, which is an essential component of

literature discussion (Heffernan & Lewison, 2000; Wilson & Troop Laman, 2007).

Social Narrative Writing

Critical writing pedagogy introduces students to a sense of intentionality or deliberation

about what writing can do (Lewison & Heffernan, 2008). In Heffernan and Lewison‟s (2003 &

2008) research the teacher (Heffernan) added social justice texts as resources during Writer‟s

Workshop. Much like Heffernan and Lewison, Gammill (2006) introduces a program writing-to-

learn which is based on the ideas that the writing process is similar to the speaking, thinking, and

learning process, an effective tool in helping students become active instead of passive learners,

and assists students to reflect and think critically about convention. Writing-to-learn encourages

students to self-question, activate prior knowledge, infer, and use their imaginations, -- all of


which led to original thoughts and insights (Gammill, 2006). Gammill utilizes two references to

close his argument for writing-to-learn (1) IRA “children need the ability to question themselves

about what they read and synthesize information from various sources, as well as be able to

judge their own understanding and evaluate ideas and prospective. (2) Thomas Jefferson

[believed the] purpose of education was to prepare citizens to participate in a democracy. By

teaching students to think and take ownership of what they read, teachers can prepare students to

participate in their society, to make decisions based on information and personal reflection, and

to make their own choices” (Gammill, 2006, p. 760).

On the other hand Heffernan and Lewison use writing mini-lessons with social-issue texts

focused not only on craft and characterization, the mini-lessons also focused on the ways

published authors constructed narratives to influence readers and call attention to issues and

intersections. After the class discussed the texts students wrote “Connections to My Life” pieces

in their writer‟s notebooks, the process for integrating reading and writer‟s workshop followed

the same pattern text read aloud, small group discussion, whole group discussion, notebook

writing, and notebook sharing (Shaw, 2002; Heffernan & Lewison, 2003). Students than began a

„Picture Book Proposal‟ where students storyboarded their ideas and began to write using the

information gathered from social issue texts, discussion, and notebook entries. Social justice

read-alouds were continued and used to craft mini-lessons on leads, time shifts, dialogue, and

showing versus telling, as the students worked on their books…[the students] talked explicitly

about the power writers have when they use writing to call attention to the workings of the world

(Heffernan & Lewison, 2003; Lewison & Heffernan, 2008). Lewison and Heffernan (2003 &

2008) developed the term “social narrative” to describe a genre that allows students to draw on a

variety of resources and then (re)create fictional worlds. In social narratives the writers often:


Shared cultural resources as they took on the identities, dilemmas, and

obstacles of self and others,

Used fiction writing as a tool for constructing and analyzing shared social

worlds,

Participated in making Writer‟s Workshop a writing collative in which writing

is viewed as form of social action, a vehicle of broadcasting messages to

others.

Heffernan and Lewison (2003) believe social narrative does not reject the personal, but rather

builds on it. Heffernan and Lewison (2003; 2008) noted students moved beyond the familiar,

personal narrative approach of workshops past in which writers represented life events and began

to see the experiences of classmates as resources, thus situating personal experiences in a larger

social context. Students began intertwining cultural resources such as notebook entries, justice

themes, and pieces of classroom conversation, which added an unusual and complex

intertextuality to the stories (Heffernan & Lewison, 2003). Lewison and Heffernan (2008) use

Yeoman (1999) to define intertextuality as use of previously known texts to make sense of new

ones and to give coherence to lived experience.

Lewison and Heffernan (2008) consider the concepts of understanding texts as “collative

constructions, seeing student borrowing in writing as remixing rather than copying, and drawing

upon student‟s cultural resources as a regular part of the curriculum allowed us to understand the

important role that intertextuality plays in student-authored stories” (p. 440). The understandings

also strengthened Lewison and Heffernan‟s belief in envisioning writing as a collective endeavor

(Lewison & Heffernan, 2008). The cultural sharing that went on during Writer‟s Workshop was

something Lewison and Heffernan (2003 & 2008) had not seen before. The students‟ fiction


stories blended their own experiences with the conversational and life resources available to the

entire group (Heffernan & Lewison, 2000, 2003, 2008). Heffernan and Lewison (2000, 2003,

2008) “are convinced that enacting a critical literacy/social justice curriculum in elementary

classrooms is definitely „[a teachers] business‟”.

Literacy is defined as the ability to read, write, and understand what is read and written,

as well as knowing how to use knowledge and skills in the context of modern life (Cohen and

Cowen, 2008, p. 6), and draws on socio-cultural theory which practices the notion that social

experience shape the ways that students think and interpret their world. As well as, the

individual student cognition occurs in a social situation, and is inseparable, and critical literacy is

people using language to exercise power, to enhance everyday life in schools and communities,

and to question practices of privilege and injustice, and compels, the need to ask, how can

teachers use critical literacy to teach writing in an elementary classroom?

Method

Researcher Stance

I began with ideal of the socio-cultural theory by Vygotsky that states students and

teachers construct meaning together. I believe that it is important for students to have a voice

and a chance to share their voice throughout the learning process. I entered this classroom

believing that teachers who use everyday texts to teach writing would have a positive impact on

students learning and ability to write. I also knew that the classroom I was observing in may not

use everyday texts as that was the case in a classroom I was previously to observe in.

Design

My research question required me to observe in a classroom, however with the limited

time that I had, I observed for eight consecutive school days. This allowed me to observe the


teacher and students through a complete project from start to finish as well as revisiting another

project and completing that one as well. The first two days I observe the teacher and students by

taking field notes. The last several days I walked around the room observing student work,

asking the students questions about their work, and answering questions they had about the

project they were working on. I also collected samples of the student work from their Top Secret

project and their Personal Narratives both of which were completed during the time that I

observed in the classroom.

Setting

School. Within the Campbell Central School District there are approximately 5,800

students enrolled. Of the 5,800 students enrolled, about 25% are classified as economically

disadvantaged. The school districts ethnicity population is approximately 73% Caucasian; 15%

African-American; 8% Asian/Pacific Islander; and 4% Hispanic. Approximately 4% of students

are English Language Learners and 13% of the student population is classified as students with

disabilities. Class sizes average 12 students per one teacher. Alyssa C. Sharp Elementary school

where I observed has approximately 500 students enrolled in the K-5 program. The school as

well as the other elementary schools implement a balanced reading and writing program using

guided reading, Strategies that Work, and 6+1 Writing Traits.

Classroom. In the classroom observed, students sat at tables with two students sitting at

one table. There were two tables in the middle, one in front of the other and six tables in the

shape of a horseshoe around the two tables in the middle. The front center of the room was a

drafting table where the teacher did most of his teaching as well as a desk in the back corner of

the room. In the front right corner of the room, there was a map of the world rug as well as a

chair and several bookshelves, which housed a variety of books including, textbooks and trade


books. In the right corner of the room, the teacher used a table for reading groups or one-on-one

meetings with students. In the back of the room were students‟ supplies in organizational

drawers as well as thesauruses and dictionaries and an aquarium with two goldfish.

Participants

The observations took place in one-third grade classroom. Mike Smith was the teacher in

this classroom. Mr. Smith is certified to teach Elementary education grades K – 6. Mr. Smith

has been teaching for seven years at various grade levels including fourth and sixth grade. Mr.

Smith received his B.S. in 1978, and decided at the time to work and save money for his M.S.

Mr. Smith said he was successful in the business world however his goals were not fulfilled.

After twenty-five years he decided to go back to his original plans and teach elementary students.

Mr. Smith said it was the “best decision I have made!”. Mr. Smith had sixteen students: seven

boys and nine girls. This was the first year that Mr. Smith used everyday texts to teach writing.

Data Collection

Before data was collected consent forms were issued in three forms, the teacher filled out

an Informed Consent Form (Appendix A), parents filled out a Parental Permission Form

(Appendix B), and the student filled out an Assent Form (Appendix C). The teacher was given

the consent form so that I could observe his/her classroom. Once permission was given to

observe in the classroom, the parental permission was given to parents to inform them of my

interaction or lack of interaction with their child. Lastly, the assent form was given to the

student to obtain their approval for me to interact as well obtain their work for further analysis.

Data was collected in three ways, informal teacher/student interviews, observations, and

documentation. When interviewing the teacher and students notes, were taken during the some

conversations, however most notes were taken after the interview subsequently allowing the


students and teachers not to feel self-conscious about their responses. Final interview questions

with the teacher were given via e-mail due to the limited amount of time after the observations

took place. Observations were completed to determine the use of critical literacy in the area of

writing, field notes were taken every day that I was in the classroom. Field notes were taken

while the teacher was teaching the lesson as well as during student work time. The documents

collected was work completed during the writing session including handouts, and student work

(drafts and final copies). The teacher copied final copies of the student work for the Top Secret

as well as Personal Narratives. I was able to collect the hard copies of the students draft for their

Narratives.

Data Analysis

Data was analyzed with an interpretive approach using a color coding system. I first

looked at my field notes and determined when, where and how the teacher used everyday texts to

influence a lesson. From there I used another color to determine students‟ actions while the text

was being used. The next step was looking at what the teacher did throughout the lesson. Then I

looked at what the student did during the lessons. Finally, because there were two projects

completed I then separated the Top Secret lessons from the Personal Narrative lessons.

Findings and Discussion

Use of Everyday Texts

Vasquez (2007) states everyday texts are texts that are spoken or written as part of

everyday life. Mr. Smith began using everyday texts in his classroom this year. In Mr. Smith‟s

classroom he decided to use everyday texts because “There are so many examples of good

writing around us, and we don‟t even realize it. I want the kids to begin to recognize that the

books they enjoy are also examples of how they can write”. Unrau (1992), Luke (2000) Foss


(2002), Heffernan & Lewison (2003), Vasquez (2007), and Lewison & Heffernan (2008) would

also agree texts are an integral part of a critical literacy curriculum that allows students to “[(1)]

see how the worlds of texts work to construct their worlds, their cultures, and their identities in

powerful, often ideological ways; and [(2)] use texts as social tools in ways that allow for a

reconstruction of these same worlds” (Luke, 2000, p. 453). Mr. Smith used several texts during

the time that he was observed they include:

The Secret Knowledge of Grown-ups by David Wisniewski

Owl Moon by Jane Yolen

Thank you, Mr. Falker by Patricia Polacco

Titanicat by Marty Crisp

All the Colors of the Earth by Sheila Hamanaka

an article describing an oil leak in Alaska.

Mr. Smith then read the first two sentences from the following texts:




All the Colors of the Earth by Sheila Hamanaka

The students were instructed to grab the reader‟s attention “you want to leave me hanging”. The

teacher reminded the students not to tell the reader what they are writing about in the first

sentence. The teacher instructed the students to think about the words in the text he just read as

well as how each text began.

Text Title and Author


Beginning of the Text

It was late one winter night…



Text Title and Author (cont.)


All the Colors of the Earth

by Sheila Hamanaka

The grandpa held the jar of honey…

Beginning of the Text (cont.)

Young Jim Mulholland can‟t believe his

luck…

Children come in all the colors of the earth…

The only disadvantage that Mr. Smith has observed is “…some students will rely on one

genre, rather than taking changes and branching out. An advantage is the kids have real life

examples right on their desks”. Vasquez (2007) claims that texts are not “natural representations

of the world they can be interrogated, deconstructed, and analyzed to uncover different views of

the world” (p. 7), which foster identification of multiple subjects that permeate their lives (Foss,

2002). Using everyday texts creates an opportunity for conversations and assist students in

thinking about an issue in a different manor, that being said the teacher must be willing to go

where the students‟ conversation leads (Vasquez, 2000; Vasquez, 2007; Wilson & Troop Laman,

2007; Lewison & Heffernan, 2008). For instance when reading The Secret Knowledge of

Grown-ups, Mr. Smith allowed students to converse about rules that their parents had as well as

creating real reasons and outrageous reasons for the rule. The discussions inevitably fostered

dialogue between the students as they made connections from The Secret Knowledge of Grown-

ups to their real life, which is an essential component of critical literacy (Heffernan & Lewison,

2000; Wilson & Troop Laman, 2007).

Purpose for Writing

Mr. Smith reviewed the three purposes of writing (persuade, entertain, and teach) asking

students to explain the meaning of each purpose:


Persuade: to make [the reader] believe something, to influence someone

Entertain: to make someone excited

Teach: to help someone learn

Mr. Smith stated that he used The Secret Knowledge of Gron-ups in particular because

students could relate to the rules and it allowed them to explain the rule creatively. Mr. Smith

also stated that this was one writing piece that students had little difficultly writing and if they

did they had the text to look at for ideas as well as listening to their classmates converse about

the text before, during, and after, he had read a particular rule. Heffernan & Lewison (2003;

2008), Vasquez (2000; 2007), Foss, (2002), Gammill (2006), and Unrau (1992), suggest using

everyday texts by implementing and responding orally to texts as well as engage students in the

writing process as Mr. Smith does in his classroom.

Format of the Writing Assignments

Mr. Smith used The Secret Knowledge of Grown-ups by Dan Wisniewski to have

students write a piece entitled Top Secret. The students were read the first rule in the text, which

was “Rule # 31 “eat your vegetables”. The text then gives the “Official Reason: They‟re good

for you” followed by “The Truth” which gives a detailed outrages reason for the rule, such as the

vegetables will come alive and terrorize humans. The teacher then gave the students directions

to write at least six of their own rules. The following day the students then began writing their

own Top Secret rule using the format from The Secret Knowledge of Grown-ups:

Location: This could be anywhere.

Date and Time: Today, past, or future.

Rule

Official Reason: also referred to as the parent reason.


The Truth: the real reason that parents have the rule.

Students had a similar experience for revising their narrative piece. Following the

reading of a detailed true story, Mr. Smith handed back the students personal narratives that they

wrote about three weeks prior. The students were given a handout “Interesting or Not?”

(Appendix D). He went over an example with the students and they completed the rest of the

handout deciding whether the lead was a good lead or a bad lead. If the lead was bad, then the

students needed to change the lead to make it a good lead. The next day students received a

second handout entitled Lead Me On (Appendix E). Students were instructed by the teacher to

pick any topic, their narrative, or top secret. The students were told to think of how they would

change the beginning using one of the starters such as:

Imagine that…

Remember when…

Have you ever…

What if…

Students were then given the chance to share their starters with the class.

Progression of Writing

Mr. Smith began the students writing their Top Secrete piece with The Secrete

Knowledge of Grown-up. Each day that the students began their Top Secret piece Mr. Smith

would read a new rule from The Secret Knowledge of Grown-ups as well as remind the students

that they could look at the text if they needed assistance or to use it as a reference for their

writing. Vasquez (2007) attempted to provide opportunities to examine the ideologies of

everyday texts used in the classroom as opportunities to negotiate meaning, participate as code

breakers, text participants, text users and text analysis of everyday social and school texts. After


Mr. Smith read, The Secret Knowledge of Grown-ups students began writing their official reason

and the truth. Students would periodically look at the text for reference as well as ask the person

sitting next to them for advice (Heffernan & Lewison, 2000, 2003; Lewison and Heffernan,

2008). The teacher said he had noticed an improvement in students writing since using everyday

texts he also stated “[the students] are able to get down to the task at hand, rather than sitting and

figuring out how to start their piece”.

While students wrote their pieces Mr. Smith would walk around the room answering

questions the students had. They asked questions about spelling, use and of quotation marks, as

well as whether they completed their Top Secrete piece correctly, to which he responded, “There

is no way that you could do this wrong”. When students began writing, their final copies Mr.

Smith paired them up and had the students read their piece to each other. In having them read

aloud he told the reader as well as listener to make sure that the piece sounds good and to make

sure the listener does not have any questions about their piece.

Previously students completed a draft of a personal narrative however; Mr. Smith wanted

students to think about their beginnings. Vasquez (2000 & 2007) and others argue that critical

literacy offers a new approach for teachers and students alike to explore and understand the

students‟ everyday life in and out of school. In order to accomplish this task Mr. Smith read an

article about a ship that was leaking oil in Alaska. He began reading stopping after the first

sentence and asked the students, what are the author was talking about? One student responded

poison water, the other student responded polluting. Mr. Smith then asked, where does it take

place? A student responded the ocean. Mr. Smith then asked the students, what does this

beginning do? The students did not respond so Mr. Smith said, it grabs your attention! Another

student Eric then said, “I know what it is a boat with an oil leak. Mr. Smith then asked, how do


you know?, Eric said “because it said boat with dark poison. Mr. Smith then discussed “telling

versus showing.” He told the students that the story shows rather than tells because of the words

“black poison” you can see it in your mind. He continued to read the article stopping

periodically to ask students, “What kind of picture do you have in your head?” After reading the

article Mr. Smith told the student that he picked the article because of the beginning.

Heffernan and Lewison (2003) believe social narrative does not reject the personal, but

rather builds on it. After sharing the descriptive article students first completed “Interesting or

Not? (Appendix D) in which they had to decide if the topic sentence was telling or showing. If

the sentence was telling they needed to revise, the sentence to show what the topic sentence was

originally was stating. After students made their changes the class went over the sentences and

discussed why they thought the sentence was telling or showing and how they changed the

sentence if it was telling rather than showing. The next day students began writing leads using

any topic of their choice with the assistance of the second handout “Lead Me On” (Appendix E).

The leads began with Imagine that…, Have you ever…, etc. After students completed the lead

sentences, they then shared out with the class.

Vasquez (2000) states it is the teacher‟s responsibility to support the students with their

writing as well as identifying helpful resources which is exactly what Mr. Smith did by reading

and referring to the text during and throughout the lesson. On the third day of working with

beginnings and lead sentence, the teacher gave back the narratives and instructed students to

begin changing their narrative. As Mr. Smith walked around the room assisting students, he told

the students several times not go give away what they are writing about in the beginning.

Gammill (2006) states it is the teachers‟ job in helping students become active instead of passive

learners, and assists students to reflect and think critically about convention, which Mr. Smith


did as he asked the students questions about their work. He then used several everyday texts and

reread the first several words of each asking the students if they could tell what the author was

going to discuss in the texts. The students stated they did not know what was coming next. Mr.

Smith told the students‟ that is exactly how their readers should feel when they are reading their

personal narrative “you want to eat the words you write in your story, you want people to feel

what you write”.

After students shared their sentences with a partner and made the necessary changes

students‟ read their sentences aloud to the class. A couple students Cassandra and Alicia read

their sentences aloud and decided that they could do better. After they fixed their sentences, they

then shared their new lead. The following day students used their own beginning sentences to

change the beginning of their narrative. Students were also able to look at everyday texts as

references (Heffernan & Lewison, 2000, 2003; Lewison & Heffernan, 2008) as well as use the

worksheets „Lead Me On‟ and „Interesting or Not?‟. Several students Cassandra, Alicia, and

Anne asked if they could write more than one opening and the teacher said yes, however they

then had to choose which lead they were going to use for their final narrative.

The process for integrating reading and writer‟s workshop is text read aloud, small group

discussion, whole group discussion, notebook writing, and notebook sharing (Shaw, 2002;

Heffernan & Lewision, 2003) is similar to what Mr. Smith‟s students do to complete their

writer‟s workshop, text read aloud, whole group discussion, independent writing, and sharing

their writing. The next day students began writing their final copy. In order to complete, their

final copy students must have a completed draft and then edit with a partner. When editing with

a partner students would read their Top Secret piece through twice. The listener would stop the

reader if they had a question or is a part in their piece did not make since. At that time, the


reader would then edit and or revise their work. The reader would then reread that section

making sure that the reader as well as the listener did not have any adjustments to make to their

piece. After editing students read their Top Secret piece in front of the class. Students read their

essays in the following order: Amanda, Anna, Chris, Dave, Eric, Kristen, Kat, Cassandra, Kelly,

Alicia, and Kyle. Students read their piece allowed standing in the front of the room.

As with the Top Secret piece students shared their entire Narrative with a partner making

sure that the Narrative, makes since as well as there were not any words left out. Students also

needed to check for paragraphs as well as details in their narrative. Once the teacher Okayed

their work, students began their final copy. The next day students completed their final copies

and began to share with the class (Shaw, 2002; Heffernan & Lewision, 2003). This time the

students were able to sit or stand behind the desk. All of the students sat behind the teacher‟s

desk to read their personal narratives.

Conclusion

Limitations

The study took place in only one classroom for an hour a day over seven days. I did not

observe in any other classrooms where teachers used or do not use everyday texts when teaching

writing. The study was short term and not completed over a long term. In addition, students

were not interviewed independently and specifically asked questions about the use of everyday

texts in the classroom.

Implications & Future Research

This study gives a limited picture of how critical literacy can be coupled with writing.

Using everyday texts as part of the lesson grabbed the students‟ attention and they became

interested in wanting to know more and using that information to adapt their writing pieces.


Professional developments would be a way for more teachers to become involved in

incorporating a variety of texts in their lessons. With further assistance I believe more teachers

will see that it is fairly simple to integrate everyday texts as a way for students to gather

information from another place. Students also need to be aware and remember that they have

texts to use as references; the teacher does not have to be the first person/thing they go to for

assistance.

Further research should observe multiple classrooms at varying grade levels. More

observation on how students use everyday texts as well as their use and if and how everyday

texts are used in other subject areas.


References

Comber, B., Thomson, P., & Wells, M. (2001). Critical literacy finds a "place": Writing and

social action in a low-income austrailan grade 2/3 classroom. The Elementary School

Journal , 101 (4).

Dixon-Kraus, L. (1996). Vygotsky in the classroom: Mediated Literacy Instruction and

Assessment. New York: Longman Publishers USA.

Foss, A. (2002). Peeling the onion: Teaching critical literacy with students of privilege.

Language Arts , 79 (5).

Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (1990). „Literacies‟ programs: Debates and demands in cultural

context. Prospect, 5 (3).

Gammill, D. M. (2006). Learning the write way. The Reading Teacher , 59 (8).

Heffernan, L. & L,ewison, M. (2000). Making real-world issuse our buisness: Critical literacy in

a third-grade classroom. Primary Voices , 9 (2).

Heffernan, L., & Lewison, M. (2003). Social narrative writing: (Re)constructing kid culture in

the writer's workshop. Language Arts , 80 (6).

Jaramillo, J. (1996). Vygotsky‟s sociocultral theory and contributions to the development of

constructivist curricula. Education, 117 (1).

Lantolf, J. (2000). Sociocultral theory and second langauge learning: Introducing sociocultral

theory. Oxford University Press, New York.

Lewison, M., & Heffernan, L. (2008). Rewriting writers workshop: Creating safe spaces for

disruptive stores. Research in the Teaching of English , 42 (4).

Luke, A. (2000). Critical literacy in Australia: A matter of context and standpoint. Journal of

Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 43 (5).


Torres-Velásquez, D. (2000). Sociocultral theory: Standing at the crossroads. Remedial and

Special Education, 21 (2).

Unrau, N. J. (1992). The TASK of reading (and writing) arguments: A guide to building critical

literacy. Journal of Reading , 35 (6).

Vasquez, V. (2000). Our Way: Using the everyday to create a critical literacy curriculum.

Primary Voices , 9 (2).

Vasquez, V. (2007). Using the everyday to engage in critical literacy with young children. New

England Reading Association Journal , 43 (2).

Wilson, J. L., & Troop Laman, T. (2007). "That was basically me": Critical Literacy, Text, and

Talk. Voices from the Middle , 2.


Appendix A


INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Title of study: Teaching Literacy Using Critical Literacy in an Elementary Classroom

Name(s) of researcher(s): Christina Gruschow

Faculty Supervisor: Gloria E. Jacobs, Assistant Professor, Literacy

E-mail for further information: [email protected]

Purpose of study: The purpose of this study is to observe how elementary teachers use

everyday texts to teach writing in an elementary classroom.

This study has been approved by John Fisher College.

Place of study: Monica B. Leary Elementary

Length of participation: February 3, 2009 - February 11, 2009

Risks and benefits: This study presents no risks to you. The benefits are the opportunity for

improved teaching.

Your name and the location of the research will be changed in order to protect your anonymity.

All data will be kept in a locked location and accessible only to the researcher.

Your rights: As a research participant, you have the right to:

1. Have the purpose of the study, and the expected risks and benefits fully explained

to you before you choose to participate.

2. Withdraw from participation at any time without penalty.

3. Refuse to answer a particular question without penalty.

4. Be informed of the results of the study.

I have read the above, received a copy of this form, and I agree to participate in the above-named

study.

Print name (Participant) Signature Date

Christina Gruschow January 29, 2009

Print name (Investigator) Signature Date

If you have any further questions regarding this study, please contact the researcher listed above.

If you experience emotional or physical discomfort due to participation in this study, please

contact the Office of Academic Affairs at 385-8034 or the Wellness Center at 385-8280 for

appropriate referrals.


Appendix B


PARENTAL PERMISSION FORM

(for use with minors)



Faculty Supervisor: Gloria E. Jacobs, Assistant Professor, Literacy

E-mail for further information: [email protected]

Purpose of study: The purpose of this study is to observe how elementary teachers use

everyday texts to teach writing in an elementary classroom.




Risks and benefits: This study presents no risks to your child. The benefits are the opportunity

for improved teaching.

Your child‟s name and the location of the research will be changed in order to protect your

child‟s anonymity. All data will be kept in a locked location and accessible only to the

researcher.

Your rights: As the parent/guardian of a research participant, you have the right to:

1. Have the purpose of the study, and the expected risks and benefits fully explained

to you before you choose to allow your minor child to participate.

2. Withdraw from participation at any time without penalty.

3. Refuse to answer a particular question without penalty.

4. Be informed of the results of the study.

I, the parent or guardian of ________________________________, a minor _________ years of

age, consent to his/her participation in the above-named study. I have received a copy of this

form.




If you have any further questions regarding this study, please contact the researcher listed above.

If you experience emotional or physical discomfort due to participation in this study, please

contact the Office of Academic Affairs at 385-8034 or the Wellness Center at 385-8280 for

appropriate referrals.


Appendix C


CHILD’S WRITTEN ASSENT



Purpose of study: The reason for this study is to learn how teachers teach writing using a texts

that relate to students.




Risks and benefits: This study presents no risks to you and it will help me become a better

teacher.

Your name and the name of the school will be changed to keep your identity a secret. Only my

professor and I will be able to see the data I collect.

Your rights: As a research participant, you have the right to:

1. You have the right to know what the study is, what the risks are and what the benefits are.

2. You can decide not to participate. It will not affect your grade or anything else in school.

3. You can decide not an answer any questions I ask.

4. You can ask to hear about what I learned.

I, ________________________________, agree to participate in this study. I have received a

copy of this form.




If you have any questions, please let me know. If anything about this study makes you

uncomfortable, let your parents know so they can contact people who can help you.


Appendix D


Appendix E

Documents

Can I look at that?: Teaching writing using critical ...reflectivepractitioner.pbworks.com/f/Gruschow+C+l.pdf · Socio-cultural Theory - Vygotsky Socio-historical theory in psychology