MD. 96 32p. - ERIC · 2014. 5. 14. · DOCUMENT RESUME. ED 393 078. CS 012 391. AUTHOR Thomas, Sally; Oldfather, Penny TITLE Enhancing Student and Teacher Engagement in Literacy

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 393 078 CS 012 391

AUTHOR Thomas, Sally; Oldfather, PennyTITLE Enhancing Student and Teacher Engagement in Literacy

Learning: A Shared Inquiry Approach. InstructionalResource No. 17,

INSTITUTION National Reading Research Center, Athens, GA.;National Reading Research Center, College Park,MD.

SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC.

PUB DATE 96

CONTRACT 117A20007NOTE 32p.

PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141) Tests/Evaluation

Instruments (160)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Classroom Environment; Elementary Education; Journal

Writing; *Literacy; .*Reading Material Selection;*Student Attitudes; *Student Motivation; *TeacherStudent Relationship

IDENTIFIERS Response to Literature; *Shared Inquiry

ABSTRACTBy focusing on what and how students want to learn,

shared inquiry between teachers and students is inherentlymotivating, supporting students' intrinsic motivation. When studentsthemselves participate as educational theorists, learning experiencesbecome more Angaging for both students and teachers. The yearlonginquiry described in this paper highlights the self-selected readingportion of a balanced language arts curriculum. Teachers and studentsare encouraged to use the example discussed in the paper as a way to

step into shared inquiry of their own choosing in which they explorethe meanings, purposes, and outcomes of their literacy curricula.Contains 36 references and 9 figures presenting excerpts fromstudents' journals. A student questionnaire is attached.(Author/RS)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

11 S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONP 0E1 r.onna Resew,. a^.1

ED5rCATIONAL PESOUNCES INFORMATnNCENTER iFRICI

TIP, do, urnent has bees reproduced usrenewed Irnsrri Zhe person or ,rganizarion',vial rig

LI Minor ( nanie, has, henn n r,imprOve reproductior, o riity

Pont Is ot view 0, cipa,n,), I ii 1 _i'll Ii Piet ritt,55r1,11 IPpra,einI3.1L a OEHI poilion or policy

"er

-

1

WS dai

SALLY THOMAS PENNY OLDFATHER

oAI

(44.

3

4Ak

4 NE

41:411\ej.s.

'kr_JERI

NRRC

eio (71,

11-147,;7"tes

Instructional Resource No. 17National Reading Research Center Winter 1996

2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

NRRCNational Reading Research Center

Enhancing Student and Teacher Engagement in LiteracyLearning: A Shared Inquiry Approach

Sally ThomasThe Claremont Graduate School

Penny OldfatherUniversity of Georgia

INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE NO. 17Winter 1996

The work reported herein is a National Reading Research Project of the University of Georgiaand University of Maryland. It was supported under the Educational Research andDevelopment Centers Program (PR/AWARD NO. 117A20007) as administered by the Officeof Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. The findings andopinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the position or policies of the NationalReading Research Center, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, or the U.S.Department of Education.

j

NRRC NationalReading ResearchCenter

Executive CommitteeDonna E. Alvermann, Co-DirectorUniversity of Georgia

John T. Guthrie, Co-DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

James F. Baumann, Associate DirectorUniversity of Georgia

Patricia S. Koskinen, Associate DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Nancy B. Mizelle, Acting Associate DirectorUniversity of Georgia

Jamie Lynn Metsala, Interim Associate DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park


John F. O'FlahavanUniversity of Maryland College Park

James V. HoffmanUniversity of Texas at Austin

Cynthia R. HyndUniversity of Georgia

Robert SerpellUniversity of Maryland Baltimore County

Betty ShockleyClarke County School District. Athens, Georgia

Linda DeGroffUniversity of Georgia

Publications Editors

Research Reports and PerspectivesLinda DeGroff. EditorUniversity of Georgia

James V. Hoffman. Associate EditorUniversity of Texas at Austin

Mariam Jean Dreher, Associate EditorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Instructional ResourcesLee Galda, University of GeorgiaResearch HighlightsWilliam G. HollidayUniversity of Maryland College Park

Policy BriefsJames V. HoffmanUniversity of Texas at Austin

VideosShawn M. Glynn, University of Georgia

NRRC StaffBarbara F. Howard, Office ManagerKathy B. Davis. Senior SecretaryUniversity of Georgia

Barbara A. Neitzey, Administrative AssistantValerie Tyra, AccountantUniversity of Maryland College Park

National Advisory BoardPhyllis W. AldrichSaratoga Warren Board of Cooperative EducationalServices, Saratoga Springs, New York

Arthur N. ApplebeeState University of New York, AlbanyRonald S. BrandtAssociation for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopmertMarsha T. DeLainDelaware Department of Public InstructionCarl A. GrantUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Walter KintschUniversity of Colorado at Boulder

Robert L. LinnUniversity of Colorado at Boulder

Luis C. MollUniversity of Arizona

Carol M. SantaSchool District No. 5Kalispell, Montana

Anne P. SweetOffice of Educational Research and Improvement.U.S. Department of Education

Louise Cherry WilkinsonRutgers University

Production EditorKatherine P. HutchisonUniversity of Georgia

Dissemination CoordinatorJordana E. RichUniversity of Georgia

Text FormatterAnn Marie VanstoneUniversity of Georgia

NRRC - University of Georgia318 AderholdUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, Georgia 30602 7125(706) 542-3674 Fax: (706) 542-3678INTERNET: [email protected]

NRRC - University of Maryland College Park3216 J. M. Patterson BuildingUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland 20742(301) 405-8035 Fax: (301) 314-9625INTERNET: NRRCaumail.umd.edu

About the National Reading Research Center

The National Reading Research Center (NRRC) isfunded by the Office of Educational Research andImprovement of the U.S. Department of Education toconduct research on reading and reading instruction.The NRRC is operated by a consortium of the Univer-sity of Georgia and the University of Maryland CollegePark in collaboration with researchers at several institu-tions nationwide.

The NRRC's mission is to discover and documentthose conditions in homes, schools, and communitiesthat encourage children to become skilled, enthusiastic,lifelong readers. NRRC researchers are committed toadvancing the development of instructional programssensitive to the cognitive, sociocultural, and motiva-tional factors that affect children's success in reading.NRRC researchers from a variety of disciplines conductstudies with teachers and students from widely diversecultural and socioeconomic backgrounds in pre-kinder-garten through grade 12 classrooms. Research projectsdeal with the influence of family and family-schoolinteractions on the development of literacy; the interac-tion of sociocultural factors and motivation to read; theimpact of literature-based reading programs on readingachievement; the effects of reading strategies instructionon comprehension and critical thinking in literature,science, and history; the influence of innovative groupparticipation structures on motivation and learning; thepotential of computer technology to enhance literacy;and the development of methods and standards foralternative literacy assessments.

The NRRC is further committed to the participationof teachers as full partners in its research. A betterunderstanding of how teachers view the development ofliteracy, how they use knowledge from research, andhow they approach change in the classroom is crucial toimproving instruction. To further this understanding,the NRRC conducts school-based research in whichteachers explore their own philosophical and pedagogi-cal orientations and trace their professional growth.

Dissemination is an important feature of NRRCactivities. Information on NRRC research appears inseveral formats. Research Reports communicate theresults of original research or synthesize the findings ofseveral lines of inquiry. They are written primarily forresearchers studying various areas of reading andreading instruction. The Perspective Series presents awide range of publications, from calls for research andcommentary on research and practice to first-personaccounts of experiences in schools. InstructionalResources include curriculum materials, instructionalguides, and materials for professional growth, designedprimarily for teachers.

For more information about the NRRC's researchprojects and other activities, or to have your nameadded to the mailing list, please contact:

Donna E. Alvermann, Co-DirectorNational Reading Research Center318 Aderhold HallUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, GA 30602-7125(706) 542-3674

John T. Guthrie, Co-DirectorNational Reading Research Center3216 J. M. Patterson BuildingUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD 20742(301) 405-8035

NRRC Editorial Review Board

Peter AfflerbachUniversity of Maryland College Park

Jane AgeeUniversity of Georgia

JoBeth AllenUniversity of Georgia

Janice F. AlmasiUniversity of Buffalo-SUNY

Patty AndersUniversity of Arizona

Harriette ArringtonUniversity of Kentucky

Manila BanningUniversity of Utah

Jill BartoliElizabethtown College

Eurydice BauerUniversity of Georgia

Janet BentonBowling Green, Kentucky

Irene BlumPine Springs Elementary School

Falls Church, Virginia

David BloomeAmherst College

John BorkowskiNotre Dame University

Fenice BoydUniversity of Georgia

Karen BromleyBinghamton Universin

Martha CarrUniversity of Georgia

Suzanne ClewellMontgomery County Public Schools

Rockville, Maryland

Joan ColeyWestern Maryland College

Michelle CommeyrasUniversity of Georgia

Linda CooperShaker Heights City Schools

Shaker Heights, Ohio

Karen CostelloConnecticut Department of Education

Harfford, Connecticut

Jim CunninghamGibsonville, North Carolina

Karin DahlOhio State University

Marcia DelanyWilkes County Public Schools

Washington, Georgia

Lynne Diaz-RicoC'alifornia State University-San

Bernardino

Ann Egan-RobertsonAmherst College

Jim FloodSan Diego State University

Dana FoxUniversity of Arizona

Linda Gambrel!University of Maryland College Park

Mary GrahamMcLean, Virginia

Rachel GrantUniversity of Maryland College Park

Barbara GuzzettiArizona State University

Frances HancockConcordia College of Saint Paul,

Minnesota

Kathleen HeubachUniversity of Georgia

Sally Hudson-RossUniversity of Georgia

Cynthia HyndUniversity of Georgia

Gay IveyUniversity of Georgia

David JardineUniversity of Calgary

Robert JimenezUniversity of Oregon

Michelle KellyUniversity of Utah

James KingUniversity of South Florida

Kate KirbyGwinnett County Public Schools

Lawrenceville, Georgia

Linda LabboUniversity of Georgia

Michael LawUniversity of Georgia

Donald T. LeuSyracuse University

Susan LytleUniversity of Pennsylvania

Bert ManginoLas Vegas, Nevada

Susan MazzoniBaltimore, Maryland

Ann Dacey McCannUniversity of Maryland College Park

Sarah McCartheyUniversity of Texas at Austin

Veda McClainUniversity of Georgia

Lisa McFallsUniversity of Georgia

Randy McGinnisUniversity of Maryland

Mike McKennaGeorgia Southern University

Barbara MichaloveFowler Drive Elementary School

Athens, Georgia

Elizabeth B. MojeUniversity of Utah

Lesley MorrowRutgers University

Bruce MurrayUniversity of Georgia

Susan NeumanTemple University

John O'FlahavanUniversity of Maryland College Park

Marilyn Ohlhausen-McKinneyUniversity of Nevada


Barbara M. PalmerMount Saint Mary's College

Stephen PhelpsBuffalo State College

Mike PickleS'outhern University

Amber 1. PrinceBerry College

Gaoyin QianLehman College-CUNY

Tom ReevesUniversity of Georg.a

Lenore RinglerNew York University

Mary RoeUniversity of Delaware

Nadeen T. RuizCalifornia State University-

Sacramento

Olivia SarachoUniversity of Maryland College Park

Paula SchwanenflugelUniversity of Georgia

Robert SerpellUniversity of Maryland Baltimore

County

Betty ShockleyFowler Drive Elementary School

Athens, Georgia

Wayne H. SlaterUniversity of Maryland College Park

Margaret SmithLas Vegas, Nevada

Susan SonnenscheinUniversity of Maryland Baltimore

County

Bernard SpodekUniversity of Illinois

Bettie St. PierreUniversity of Georgia

Steve StahlUniversity of Georgia

Roger StewartUniversity of Wyoming

Anne P. SweetOffice of Educational Research

and Improventent

Louise TomlinsonUniversity of Georgia

Bruce VanSledrightUniversity of Maryland College Park

Barbara WalkerEastern Montana University-Billings

Louise WaynantPrince George's County Schools

Upper Marlboro, Maryland

Dera WeaverAthens Academy

Athens, Georgia

Jane WestAgnes Scott College

Renee WeisburgElkins Park, Pennsylvania

Allen WigfieldUniversity of Maryland College Park

Shelley WongUniversity of Maryland College Park

Josephine Peyton YoungUniversity of Georgia

Hallic YuppCalifornia State University

About the Authors

Sally Thomas is Director of Teacher Education atThe Claremont Graduate School. She has almost 30years of teaching experience in a variety ofeducational contexts, mostly in public schools. Shereceived a B.A. from Pomona College, an M.S.from the University of Southern Mississippi, andher Ph.D. from The Claremont Graduate School,where she received the Phi Delta Kappan PeterLincoln Spencer Award in 1994. She shares anumber of research interests with Oldfather.Additionally, her research focuses on assessment asit affects the learning and achievement of studentsand teachers inside classrooms and the developmentof schools as learning communities. Dr. Thomashas published in such journals as The LearningDisabilities Quarterly and The Reading Teacher.

Penny Oldfather is Assistant Professor in theDepartment of Elementary Education at the Univer-sity of Georgia. She has sixteen years of publicschool experience in teaching and administration.She received a B.A. from Oberlin Collegf:, anM.A. from the University of South Dakota, andher Ph.D. from The Claremont Graduate School,where she received Phi Delta Kappan Peter LincolnSpencer Dissertation Award in 1991. She is aprincipal investigator with the National ReadingResearch Center. Her research focuses on studentmotivation and social constructionism in teachingand learning, with particular interest in qualitativeresearch processes that explore students' perspec-tives. She has published in such journals as Educa-

tional Researcher, Journal of Reading Behavior,Research in Middle Level Education, and Language

Arts.

11311:11P

Enhancing Student andTeacher Engagementin Literacy Learning:

A Shared Inquiry Approach

Sally ThomasThe Claremont Graduate School

Penny Old fatherUniversity of Georgia

National Reading Research CenterUniversities of Georgia and Maryland

Instructional Resource No. 17Winter 1996

Abstract. By focusing on what and how studentswant to learn, shared inquiry between teachersand students is inherently motivating, supportingstudents intrinsic motivation. When studentsthemselves pariicipate as educational tLeorists,learning experiences become more engaging forboth students and teachers. The yearlong inquirydescribed here highlights the self-selected read-ing portion of a balanced language arts curricu-lum. We encourage teachers and students to usethis example as a way to step into shared inqui-ries of thei.- own choosing in which they explorethe meanings, purposes, and outcomes of theirliteracy curricula.

AMIN

Dear Mrs. Thomas,I've [reached] my goal this week

by reading a lot of Bradbury short sto-ries. I think he's an excellent writer, andI thank you for taking me to the Book-worm [Bookstore] to have him sign mybooks. Some of my favorite stories byhim are The Small Assassin, The Pedes-trian, the Fog Horn, and many more. Ireally like the Ray Bradbury unit we did.It's better than doing a reading log on acertain book like we've done beforebecause the stories are quite differentfrom each other. Bradbury is one of myfavorite authors.

And you might want to read someof his stories in front of the class 'causemost of the class likes him.

Brian

1 Thomas & Oldfather

Brian,

Thanks for letting me know when youlike units or activities. It helps me planbetter. I agree. I think 90% of the classloved Bradbury. Won't he be glad to getour essays?

What will you try next? Do you like Brad-bury or Tolkien best? Is that a fair question?I couldn't answer it myself.

Also. you are doing a great job of keep-ing up [with your goals] lately. Does it feelbetter?

Sally

This exchange between Brian and Sally waspart of the shared inquiry into literacy learningthat took place in Sally Thomas's classroom of10- and 11-year-olds at Willow School (apseudonym), situated in a small community inSouthern California. The journals reflect thefree exchange that took place between teacherand students about books, personal readingpurposes, and pedagogy in their whole lan-guage classroom. Participalion in interactivejournals was just one of several strategies usedby Sally and her students as they joined in thisshared inquiry. They found these experiencesto be deeply motivating (Oldfather, 1993a;Oldfather & McLaughlin, 1993).

In this instructional resource we' describehow teachers and students can move towardcreating literacy learning experiences that areengaging for both teachers and students. Wepresent an approach that encourages teachersand students to step into a shared inquiry oftheir own choosing in which they explore themeanings, purposes, and outcomes of theirliteracy curriculum

For example. both students and teachersmay grapple with the issue of which bookscount most for whom. What does it mean tothe teacher when a student picks books frompredictable series like The Babysitters Club orSweet Valley Twins? What does that choicemean to the student? What are the implicationsof having choice in the first place? In anotherexample, teachers and students may thinkabout the differences in shared and sel f-selected reading experiences. There may bevalue for students in discovering that they canenjoy and learn from a book they would nothave choen for themselves. There may bevalue for a teacher in discovering that a studentwhom s/he had judged as less than able choseto immerse her/himself in National Geographicmagazines because of an avid interest inarchaeology. We believe this inquiry processhas potential to transform classrooms.

Our approach rests on the belief thatintrinsic motivation is inherently bound upwith the learning process. Rather than viewing

1We both are teachers, teacher-researchers, and univer-

sity researchers. Our common interest across 5 years has

been our collaboration with a group of students beginning

in Sally's classroom in 1989. Sally was engaged inpractical shared inquiry, as described in this article, with

her class at the same time that she was working on her

doctoral program. Penny conducted her dissertationresearch in Sally's classroom, collaborating with thestudents as co-researchers on their motivation for learning

(Oldfather, 1991). Our work has continued, separately at

times and together, taking several forms. The students,now in high school, are conducting their own research on

motivation, and we continue as their partners (Old father,

1993h. 1994. )

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, INSTRUC FIONAL RESOURCE NO. 17

1 0

Shared Inquiry 3

motivation as something that teachers do tostudents, we believe that motivation flows outof children's natural curiosities and socialinclinations as well as their yearnings forself-determination. We seek to promote stu-dents' continuing impulse to learn (CIL). Thisform of motivation is

an on-going engagement in learning that ispropelled and focused by thought and feel-ing emerging from the learners' processesof constructing meaning. CIL is character-ized by intense involvement, curiosity, anda search for understanding as learnersexperience learning as a deeply personaland continuing agenda. (Oldfather & Dahl,1994, p. 142)

Students who experience this quality of motiva-tion in classroom literacy feel no separationbetween who they are and what they do inschool. By focusing on what and how studentswant to learn, shared inquiry is inherentlymotivating, naturally supporting the continuingimpulse to learn (Oldfather & McLaughlin,1993).

Principles of Shared Inquiry

The inquiry processes we describe build ontwo new directions in classroom research. First.the starting point is with students and theirunderstandings rather than teaching methodol-ogy. Second, the students are not the objects ofstudy. They are instead partners-in-inquiry.

Shared inquiry requires a shift of focusfrom teaching and method to a focus on studentand teacher learning. We hasten to say that

teaching and method continue to be important,but they flow in the most meaningful andresponsive ways when participants' first focusis on learning rather than on the method itself.This may appear to be a small and unimportantdifference. However, we argue that such a shiftmakes visible and accessible the intertwiningof motivation and literacy learning as enactedin classroom life (Oldfather & Dahl, 1994;Thomas, 1993).

Although learning cannot be directly "seen"(Weade, 1992), a number of researchers areexploring ways to understand learning from thechild's point of view (Nicholls & Hazzard,1993; Short & Pierce, 1990; Taylor, 1993).Vivian Paley's work (1989, 1990) exemplifieshow sensitive attention to students' perspec-tives has potential to precipitate basic changesin the ways that a teacher conceptualizes teach-ing and learning.

The act of teaching became a daily searchfor the child's point of view accompaniedby the sometimes unwelcome disclosure ofmy hidden attitudes. The search was whatmatteredonly later did someone tell meit was researchand it provided an open-ended script from which to observe, inter-pret, and integrate the living drama of theclassroom. (Paley, 1989, p. 7)

The shared inquiry requires another impor-tant shift, this time in terms of relationships.The teacher shares the control and responsi-bility for shaping the teaching/learning processwith students by inviting them to take activeroles in the inquiry. The students know s/heneeds and trusts them to think about and articu-

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CEN FLA, INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE NO. 17

Thomas & Oldfather

Trying out Changes/Reflecting on results

identifying multipleources of data

Figure 1. The Inquiry Cycle

late their growing understandings. The students

also take active roles in planning and imple-menting classroom experiences. The sharedinquiry cycle is summarized in Figure 1.

The Inquiry Cycle

Shared inquiry with students may be viewedas a cycle of exploration. It is important toremerriler that this cycle is recursive rather thansequential. Student involvement in the inquiryoccurs constantly and can raise new issues forfurther inquiry and reflection at any time. Nickiraised just such an issue with her comment inher reading log (see Figure 7). In another exam-ple, reflection, both teacher and student, resultedin an expanding of goals to include a widerrange of reading. The elements are summarizedbelow.

Selecting theInquiryFocus

The example in this article focuses on read-ing workshop and was raised by the teacher.Inquiry issues mu as easily be raised by stu-dents. Many other areas of the literacy curricu-lum could be explored. For example, a teacherand students may wish to explore whole-classshared reading, reading for investigations in

science or social studies, or literature discussiongroups. Self-selected or directed writing experi-ences could also be explored.

Arepb,Opening upSpace andTime

Shared inquiry requires a commitment toopen up both literally and metaphorically thenecessary time and space to try things out, toplay with variations, to probe the possibilities forenhancing motivation and learning, and to takerisks in entering new territory.

InvolvingStudents

Students are valued participants from thebeginning. Their explicit involvement through

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER. INSTRUCTIONAL REsoURCE NO. 17

12

Shared Inquiry 5

dialogue, both oral and written, provides infor-mation that the teacher cannot access alone.Possibly even more important is the inherentvalue to students in thinking about how theylearn best and having some say in shaping theirown learning.

tit IdentifyingMultiple Sourcesof Data

Data sources for the inquiry need to bediverse. Anecdotal evidence is available fromwhole-class and individual discussions withstudents. Open-ended, written dialogue in theform of interactive reading journals providesconcrete evidence of students' thinking, under-standings, problems, and questions. Records ofbooks read by students provine both qualitativeand quantitative data. Questionnaires can elicitmore focused information.

JoiningwithColleagues

Joining wi h colleagues is of immensevalue in initiating new projects. Colleagues canshare ideas and provide support in what maysometimes feel like a risky venture (Thomas,1994). More distant collaboration is availablethrough reading how others focused on chil-dren's learning from the children's point ofview, for example, White Teacher (Paley,

1989), Multiple Worlds of Child Writers:Friends Learning to Write (Dyson, 1989),Children's Voices (Hudson-Ross, Cleary, &Casey, 1993), Engaging Children (Allen, Shoc-kley, & Michaelove, 1993), Education asAdventure: Lessons from the Second Grade(Nicholls & Hazzard, 1993), and From theChild's Point of View (Taylor, 1993).

Trying OutChanges, Reflectingon Results

A series of changes, perhaps large, per-haps small, can be initiated based on the newinsights gained with the help of the children.Changes in one part of the day may seep overinto other parts of the curriculum, which maybe reconsidered and reshaped as well. This isan on-going, recursive process that requirestime: time for revisiting and reflection, timefor settling in, and time for the new rhythms tobecome more comfortable for teachers andstudents.

An Example of Shared Inquiry

Getting Started:Reading Time

Questioning Self-Selected

In the fall of 1989, I (Sally)was becoming increasinglydissatisfied with the "si-lent," self-selected readingportion of our school day.My iTilti-aged classroom

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE NO. 17

a

Thomas & Oldfather

was already successfully engaged in its ownversion of Atwell's (1985,1987) writing work-shop. We were also enjoying whole-classshared reading experiences, organized themati-cally, with smaller groups reading self-selectedextensions. It had not seemed necessary to lookclosely at independent reading time. In fact, Ihad reservations about what seemed to me anoveremphasis on self-selection in Atwell'swork. Although sometimes my students andI raised inquiry issues together, in this casethe concern may have surfaced for me becausethere was an exceptionally wide range ofinterests, strengths, and needs among thestudents that year. Eight students werereceiving support from the resource specialist.Several other bilingual students, althoughcomfortable with conversational English,were still transitioning at the deeper literacylevels described by Krashen (1981) andCummins (1981). I felt an extra pressure tobe sure that every part of the curriculum wasvaluable for all students.

Taking Time to Observe and Reflect

I first spent some timesimply observing studentsreading. Opening up timefor observation and re-flection at this pointmeant trusting that theinquiry was more valuable

than direct instruction, than modeling myselfas a reader (often expected of sustainedsilent reading programs), or even than theopportunity to read with and assess individ-ual students. Although some noses were

glued to books, a number of students weremostly shuffling books during the readingperiod, passing notes, wiggling beyond thenorm, and for me the worst, "faking 't." Anumber were reading books I considerco lessthan interesting or challenging. I asked stu-dents to list their 10 favorites. Several couldnot remember 10 titles, let alone their favor-ites. It did not take me long to realize thatmy students did not believe self-selectedreading was a valuable part of our curriculum.

Asking Students for Their Help

To get started, I sharedwith students the reasons forthe inquiry and the impor-tance of their involvement.Revisiting Atwell's (1987)ideas about reading work-shop, I began a series of

whole-class discussions in which we brain-stormed ideas and opinions. Students ccnsid-ered: What kinds of books do we like to read?What makes a good book, anyway? How do wechoose books? Do we listen to our friends'advice? If so, which friends? Do we read thecovers? Look at the pictures? Find favoriteauthors? How long do we decide to stay with abook that hasn't captured our interest?

Student ideas were posted on charts thatcould be revisited and revised as the year wenton. Discussions wove in and around the accumu-lating ideas about how to make reading choices.Ten-year-old Sarah explained that it was impor-tant for her to go past the first chapter beforegiving up on a book. She noted that sometimesauthors were purposefully confusing in the


I_ 4

Shared Inquiry 7

beginning to draw us into the story. One studentcemembered a "five finger rule." Youngerchildren had been advised to hold a fingerdown for each unknown word. More than 5 perpage might mean the book was too hard. Ofcourse, we talked about longer texts and otherfactors affecting difficulty. We decided that wemight not want to read a good book "before itstime."

Setting Goals

Important discussions earlyin the effort involvedsetting goals for self-

selected reading. Studentstalked about purposes forreading in general. Theyconsidered whether they

believed that sheer quantity would increase read-ing fluency and/or overall academic success. Iregularly shared research findings that I thoughtwould be interesting to them (e.g., Anderson,Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985; El ley &Mangubhai, 1983).

Students' first goals related to quantity.Some estimated the number of pages they wouldread in a month; others, the number of books.Yet even this seemingly narrow focus led to richdiscussion. Was a fast reader better than a slowreader? Did reading books for a second timecount? How did we compare the value of read-ing many easier books with reading one difficultbook more slowly? The questions reflectedstudents' efforts to understand their own goals,values, and purposes for reading. They were noteasy questions. I tried to make it clear that theymight each have different answers.

One Student's Story

My commitment to trust-ing the process of individ-ual goal setting was testedby a student who was newto the school and its valuesin terms of collaborationlearning, and assessment.

He set his goal at 2000 pages for the firstmonth, reporting his success with a list ofbooks read. I could not know for sure whetherhe actually read the listed books, but that wasnot the point. He needed to understand thisprocess was really about setting his own goals.I bit my tongue, for the time being.

For the second month, the student kept his2000 page goal, but reported reading nothing!When we conferenced, I asked if he had per-haps set his goal too high. He replied, "Nope,I just like it that way. A lot of reading onemonth and nothing the next." Following ahunch, I risked probing his moth es further."Could it possibly be that you wanted to proveyou could read more than anyone eie in theclass?" The boy's blue eyes twinkled, luckilynot with the tears that might have been thereearlier in the fall. Together we acknowledgedthat he did not enjoy reading nearly as much as"math and sports and other stuff," in spite ofhis clear ability to read challenging texts. I

thought about his need to compete, his fear oftaking risks, and other issues that I was begin-ning to understand had an effect on his learn-ing. Together we began to adjust his goals toinclude books that were more fun than the oneshe had chosen simply to impress others or hisparents.



Figure 2. A new student


I C

Shared Inquiry 9

Importance of Taking Time

Nevertheless, he contin-ued for the next 5 monthswith public commentsabout the lack of challengein our shared books."Why aren't we readingmore difficult books like

Edgar Allan Poe?" It was not until March andthe creation of our new "top ten" lists that Isaw concrete evidence that he was reading forhis own purposes (see Figure 2).

His list included popular authors like RoaldDahl and Lynn Reid Banks. The naming of aclass book of poems, Colors, was especiallytelling since his poem had also been a break-through for him in terms of authenticity ofvoice. He had been complimented by severalvisitors to the school for his work. The com-parison between top ten lists earlier in the falland later in the year was an important source ofdata for both the students and me.

Ongoing Communications with Students

Katie's letters made clear to me that shehad heard and applied our whole-class discus-sions about selecting books at appropriatereading levels. She was comfortable with theknowledge that she was not yet ready for aStephen King novel; she had faith that moreexperience would allow her to enjoy the booklater. Second, her decision to read only select-ed chapters in an information book was herown discovery, one that she was able to sharewith her classmates.

Extending Experiences with Literature

AcCW

119

The interactive readingjournals suggested origi-nally by Atwell (1987)were another importantsource of data. Throughthe journals, with trustand time, I was able to

learn more about the students' level of respon-sibility with regard to setting and articulatingtheir own goals. Katie's journal entries illus-trate this goal adjusting as well as other kindsof ownership (see Figures 3 and 4).

The students created theirown unique genre list.They called h. "The Kindsof Books We Like to

Read." The list included

both traditional categories,like poetry or historical

fiction, and books grouped by topics related tothematic units such as survival or quest fantasybooks. Series books like the Sweet ValleyTwins and The Babysitters Club were quitepopular with some students. Ray Bradbury, anauthor of such importance to the class that hewas his own category, was Nicki's favoriteauthor. She liked his Dandelion Wine bestbecause "although it was science fiction, it

involved 'real life problems.After students articulated the kinds of books

we were reading as a class, they went on tograph their own reading by month. This lednaturally to new goals that extended the range oftheir reading experiences. Vanessa concluded,for example, "I would like to try a different typeof book. More like fantasy. And I will readmore to improve."


1 "1

Thomas & Oldfather

7.)0_22;7mmQ.s gz- sfo_ .

cF kt _L) cA

.61617 -4 or nu.ettr\c, z

- Z2 c c filer At. rpf,it 4-0 q411 111- but.

i'.1.1114- A . . oker--r<Agy a " 1%14 5 hof

::-_r_ %-1 L3 1014.) d,

It-enviz)` z'..14. readr-t0A rle

- read_ t_Calao -a& EM.P _

rora04s +0 K4dr, e 4.trs

41rAt_s .haA. aci One And a 1,10.1-----itaimr5 _wog ao.q 4-0 marc, 41.ter

Wo.5 a pocl csoal bact-_amt.) _a: C-Ca-trze-s 0A,r-r

vicei cital

. MU. ano. &AAA& 710adrs. Lt. Afeit44(44,4)

Aufersza. Ai lc, pt&y. pprd . 3en Liwt4d.4.4,4. 714, 4sc.4-04-V.

/124.1 .

>/e,

24,4 7 _S-r-4-4;4e4l...

0-4e2pL. 41"/ 47±11411_1:12

dI( 74-d_r

LP-4-

Figure 3. Katie


BEST COPY AVAILABLE

S

Shared Inquiry 1 1

Dc7.101.1CP.-14)progi

togl, .00,04 r

M (era beck5 A...lei3e.)41a 41445 or reaalAo *NI 5rstra, t \we. ca.% w, 0.6i Gc Asala cal

tktur \o 1. ao, vadtm sac at TKO

\Ur. Car &Oran. Z almos-t nouir4 bitNourrbwA r tke. Ake ,stamegies 4/ um. and .41t, ujc,i

t%A&I &scram. eti*. 'MA OtISLI bot tr.o.2

-they kt fiz May. s+ koi 0.11494ers of41.4coo o No kite, 4.na[Aver ruytts mai 4ke. anole bca..lutch 63ate. arviess each cqie f sitgerteOmen. Moan 4f.a4sel trZets Itaran3

44Z. iz Ceti 1,10VA :::04c so1-4 itc Araiscix

taDIA> litt* *oniet tones zTett like. anal 340tvirnies =rloo4./145.rraill hard ir) KtrAti &iffl Iftxt &AI' want-

++) Z. gunk. e ebottla be Obit 4-c,_sole recta amen ferA ip ofufsif Ai- .¢ flgteii you Loan+ iv

44 !TA- / Anaf- 4:f Paits13611A, te3

63 I //43 .390--,2"1" .10 (e4.1l e utB

(514 / 1 It' b4'1` eat ek% Igtf

25f\

Vitio /44,1.14 S)4DA

1'40164, ko.«AV Ay 44444

164 tv.i. 4. 1:#14ii al

11.131-04 «is4.43.4 10-41.

40.44. Adz ot /0v " book .

A /IV& f6K4,01... W-e444.

2; d.A.A44...

16.1.4 4/04014")

V 041.411

C41.4.

Figure 4. Katie


1 9BEST COPY AVAILABLE


Plarth 44 lo

lears rnrs. Thornas)itei) yet doie-C.7 We11 iuees Isv Won+. (=to kn -

t tre fly raothl 401,7 VJell T.. telt yet .V.E. solei sra.06!have ire (lac( 4120tA /0 bah'ort book.t

kat,e, (cad aboo-6 /0 boo/c. LoZy. asy owli t4t001 3et-7.5 bet-uf a& re4d;n3 Cembar.

Any i.114, And at soled r have. been c.Luertg.n3 /abbics.174 44 Koto r .c ieithin5 rat ry -Re.i2eA

1- I--op .1.15 reak home. T. am rem:11,13 n.Wok coiled Hello ltheort5 titnriber I don '4 l 'hoc 6very Cita* and ani ei4ag eraiepa.! ,,31e. A.pbe r -st ris 1-41/en4.);, tto " sis soba, izier:n3 botj_ yestIve, ; o.. . rre eeOn ydiu, happeris .

glarch Bp 1,4

errity

Ra sited Co;ry 126e1

Kiel/ ed 44-.1 Maim.letber a& r e

don' MNJcu,or kad. Wen

betovs ca. Ste. . 4OCke3di,d3 leAer yOU Wig

34115 a52 and :el &Ica,

t,eq, t -irtekt. vAriFcAi 2e6i

Figure 5. Rory


BEST COPY AVAILABLE 20

Shared Inquiry 13

Emerging Patterns

Specific insights aboutparticular students alwayshelped me support theirindividual learning. But

the patterns that emergedfor groups of studentssometimes led to changes

in my approaches for the whole class. Nicki'scomments helped me see one such set of pat-terns. Her interests as a writer and a readerwere closely connected. In a similar vein, Pauldescribed One-Eyed Cat (Fox, 1984) as afavorite book "because of its good descrip-tion." Paul, Nicki, and other students read likewriters, looking for techniques they could usein their own writing. I realized how importantreading was becoming to the students' develop-ment as writers. I had known this on a theoreti-cal level before but had not fully integrated thatknowledge into my practice. This understand-ing led to a greater blurring of the boundariesbetween readers' and writers' workshops. AsAbigail pointed out, we might be reading inwriting time or writing in reading time. I

trusted students to meet their own needs in thisregard.

Students continued to examine their pur-poses for reading and their criteria for qualitybooks. For example, Rory said that Ferret inthe Bedroom, Lizard in the Fridge (Wallace,1987) was "not one of the ones that will stay inmy heart. I know it was a quickie, butoh,well." Omar felt that Different Dragons (Little,1989) "sort of reached inside me." He recom-mended that I read it.

Comments like these highlighted anotheremerging pattern related to the possibleimportance of books that I had previouslydiscounted. I realized that books I had previ-ously looked down on as not being qualityliterature met the needs of readers in twodifferent ways. Rory naturally alternated, asmany mature readers do, between lighter, morepredictable books and those of more substance(see Figure 5). Other students were moredependent on the highly predictable genrebooks to build their competence and fluency. Icame to respect both uses more.

Reading Aloud

Brian wrote about hisproblems with listening toother students read (seeFigure 6). I was comfort-able with giving studentspurposeful opportunitiesto read aloud such as

Readers Theater, choral reading, or simplysharing favorite passages. I consciously avoid-ed whole-class round-robin reading, but foundthat students regularly pushed me for theopportunity to join in when the whole class wassharing a book. I wondered if their desire toread at such times was legitimate and if mystance was too rigid. Brian's reflection, Aiow-ever, helped me see a connection betweenvisualizing a story and hearing story voices inone's head. I wondered if all students did bothor whether they tended to use one more thanthe other. I knew that poorer readers often didnot do either. I related this also to Rory'scomment that she liked my reading aloud


21

Thomas & Oldfather

sometrm boarir5 1-;-) ,L..7ther

cicosnicd---es aiz) its \(ii O b(1-`''n.9 bcc-a-Lt5A.11:n1 < t'ne voc,e5 1-he akvrluter_s5 t u.11)erl 1..ste 11 mg 3001e.oyi Pl5t. 4-hej dero

14.5C' 44`05e. VOIC..6S $.0 LaNe Ljah_ 3'har reada4.,141,N, i-he voices .Lic 43,avv311-1 e,r-e CA,A,'011 proito1(.) wr.eisE)N

e,10re,,In-teres.n9 r 1-vi tie Ite5-eadcrr er5 ....s

Figure 6. Brian

because my voice "put meaning in the words."All of this strengthened my conviction that, asmuch as students liked to participate as readers,as listeners it was important for them to hear aconsistent, experienced voice. At the sametime, I made sure to increase their opportuni-ties for planned audience reading.

Rereading

Nicki discovered the valueof re-reading through ourdialogue in the interactivereading journals, chris-tened "chatty letters" bymy ever inventive class(see Figures 7 and 8).

Raising New Issues for Inquiry

Arco.PONeNoy>,

I had moved away fromtraditional book reportsseveral years before andhad recently experimentedwith creative projects orsimply reading for pleasure

As part of the shared inquiry, I experimentedwith interactive reading journals (Atwell ,

1987; Five, 1986) as a way to carry on literacyconversations with individual students. Thesechatty letters ranged from short to long andfrom funny to quite serious. But they werenever boring. Students never avoided them orrequested a break, unlike their reactions toliterature/reading logs as seen in Nicki'sletter (see Figure 8).

This finding was signifi-cant to me, since mystudents were used tospeaking very forthrightlyabout what they liked ordisliked. I concluded thatthis was because in both

content and format the letters embodied aconversation in which the students and I moreequally shared insights, questions, delights,and struggles. The students did not interpretthe letters as assignments. I used this insight inturn to critique the ways I was using readinglogs. Had reading logs become for the students


Shared Inquiry 15

1:04-241:1_16.9.0_

Dep( "Thotras,011 CNI. 06 '-f--e° A.S__OPtiSc

V- -I itkvIvr-i- 41(7.'4 .Picynnil _.7-71-Siims-

h4 .114.L frick),91 r hAe

-6a:11,yi of ph* atzk kerttez wd-ev,4(444 IF _Zttir:__IL

Wa 40, rad Alt,?Iv.f r Nuti.s

kW- CV Netzq al- _Sounds__

4 7 `TlYw:(1: 13(11';',i-ih-ifie4t.61.1g231:L.G-61;

iirtp i-r egralvx- G.so 7It

101Y1: c2, nki 2-0^' aba F /7\-miaci(a. Or if-,

cYw .51-% it' Mg vathruel- iff .

gl&-.7c2Lve.d .LO AtitztA"===.%-(2 tAt-'04) 40-44-441" /14-4:44-

44 44.A I-4.. A. et vo. .7"1-5

14;# )terge 7 see Sevrz1At4s

hud .5tcond 4r;ne .7 ste more.E5pee.tatty <ge_ real aritilit.f /e.

4-the "

ntaed 7D 41.44t. )54 44k. A.,47f,d4.11/44404, 217La)

60641iM ;11. kat;1-A-41.1_

Figure 7. Nicki


BEST COPY AVAILABLF23

Thomas & Oldfather

11115. horrum

7anastif

kart 1W2 Slat" anl z .gurreia- im ruat,. Yow fJYOU 10 le rewd

ludf5yev ga 1/1174 rif V 011C11-1-WAt_.

INTO- 411111-11- Wink&

40101 014- tree:r..13crt.

1(7 MI e)1211410111--Peet-WL4t&

OA OKI_ 42 mot ovs5 irt445

ok-u +10- eitiva5)bia- _h mak{set-

tfri)941Af. woe

itilitr.t .41 tilaa __

Az-a-ArA: .4. .1.4Z -

..17);:r...".. 14;4. rp6id

114. 4.4

IT%a 77:

44,

Figure 8. Nicki


BEST COPY AVAILABLE2 4

-.

Shared Inquiry 17

.,

....1111111

-

--7.imaMINEe

Nicki

just another form of questions at the end of thestory? In this case, the students initiated animportant issue for our next shared inquiry.

The students and I chal-lenged ourselves to be

sure the logs were beingused purposefullytosupport group discussionsor later writingnot justto check up on reading.

Student Reflection.' Focused Questions,Comparisons, Contrasts

In connection with bothspring parent conferencesand a presentation I wasto make at The ClaremontReading Conference, I

developed a questionnaireto help students reflect

more explicitly on their experiences with both

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER. INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE NO. 17

9 r

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

18 Thomas & OldfatherIshared and self-selected reading (see Appen-dix). The students knew their responses hada number of important audiences: themselves,me, their parents, and other educators.Overall, the students indicated that theyvalued both self-selected and shared reading,but for different reasons. A number ofstudents said that shared reading "broad-ened" their experiences. Paul acknowledged,"I usually wouldn't read what Mrs. Thomaspicks." But he also said, "I really thinkwe're reading very good books this year."Vanessa wrote that sometimes she did notlike the shared books. "Maybe because Idon't like the book and we go too slow (eventhough I read slow).- But she also wrote,"Most of the time I like what we've donewith reading. It's better to have more peopleread together because more people havemore ideas." Listening to her classmates,Vanessa commented that they "ask questionsthat make me notice or wonder things that Ididn't [before]." Interestingly, Nicki indicatedthat a shared book experience, One-Eyed

Ca, which she disliked intensely, was oneof her most important learning experiencesof the year.

Students valued looking together at theways that an author used language, andmany demonstrated a sophisticated sense andappreciation of reading for different pur-poses. After exploring as a class Ray Brad-bury's poetic use of language. Ishy wrote inher reflection, "I notice weird quotes morein my class reading. In my own [reading], Itend to get more involved."

Like the reading journals,the reflective evaluationsprovided evidence of stu-dents' motivation andachievement. They alsodemonstrated students'ability to think, talk, and

write about that evidence. They helped usmake decisiorl about plans for future learning,both individually and as a leaining community.

Teacher Reflection

Although the evidenceshould have been clearthroughout the chattyletters and in answers tothe questions, it was notuntil I reflected upon thestudents' "Ten Favorite

Books" after the year was over that I gainedyet another important insight. I realized withchagrin that there were almost no choicesreflecting a multicultural curriculum. I hadcertainly been making efforts to grow in thisregard, but I could see that those efforts hadnot gone beyond Banks' (1989) contributionandadditive levels of a multicultural pedagogy. .

I understood that I had probably not yet trans-formed my own values and passions. I clearlyhad much work to do. I doubt that that realiza-tion would have been possible without theconcrete data I had collected. It providedpowerful evidence whk-h I could not overlook.I have regretted, since that was my last year inthe classroom, that I was unable to share thisnew inquiry opportunity with the students.


26

Shared Inquiry 19

-

s. Thames

_Chris frn 0,/, nrn . .reck d i n.3 tvaa

As/sr. . pi _pre?, that Y.- v_floe ay; le. art b6cic yom.eci- 121.47t 1.5 A: 0,er qaa.12 pojc _6.L.t 4/.7 e neAst bbok.

g reuel s 50,x,hJID f nd S tint 1+

ziadid+ _to -F 14, d a. boo k 'fc.to - dt1 y a&&isif to. staid

"C rch, - oftner- Words it-_..ao..5t plan hard 't e.II f

--ya.u. h ave. . any so.stirts.

- - - - -

Figure 9. Marcel

Problems and Frustrations

Although we found solu-tions to many problems,both individual and whole-class , some were simplyunresolvable. Often, re-sults came months into theschool year. A few chil-

dren did not learn to love reading, although allbut one became better readers in one way oranother. Marcel had trouble finding books toread (see Figure 9).

Although he had "exquisite tastes andstandards" and understood shared texts at avery sophisticated level, he had great difficulty

with processing print. Together we searchedfor books interesting enough to compensate forhis difficulty in reading. For example, he lovedinventions and especially enjoyed texts com-bined with pictures as in Macaulay's (1988)book, The Way Things Work.

I never fully resolved my questions regard-ing Marcel's difficulty with processing print.Was it important to keep trying to build flu-ency or should we move straight to alternativestrategies for accessing the amount of text hemight need to process in the years ahead? I doknow Marcel was at least reading with minimalpain and a maximum of enjoyment! Marcel'sneeds also led me to reconsider my own as-sumptions about what counted as quality read-


BEST COPY AVAILABLE

20 Thomas & Okifaher

ing. I came to realize that my own bias towardfiction and poetry did not always allow forwhat students needed.

Patience and trust wereimportant and not alwayseasy. Finding time is

always an issue for teach-ers and continued to be sofor me. But the changesthat we made enabled me

to interact with and know students in personaland specific ways. This shift, in turn, helpedme to let go of other time-consuming practices(e.g.. responding to every piece of studentwork). Because students had more say abouttheir learnin. I had far less need for extrinsiccontrols, like the marks in my record book.Through the inquiry, students shared the re-sponsibility for keeping track of their ownlearning. The time we spent was more oftenexhilarating than a burden.

Conclusions: Always Believe the Bird

There is a birdwatchers'proverb that advises,"When the bird and thebook disagree, alwaysbelieve the bird." Thiscounsel is appropriate aswe seek to share inquiry

with students to discover the purposes they findmeaningful in their own learning. We havewonderful professional books and other re-sourLes for our teaching. But in the end, wealso need to trust and believe the students, forthey are the experts. after all. about what

makes sense to them, about what kinds andways of learning are most interesting, relevant.and important (McCombs & Marzano, 1990;Nicholls, Patashnick, & Nolen. 1985; Old-father, 1993a).

Sharing inquiry with students does notmean that we relinquish our roles as teachers.Nor does it mean that educational outcomes orcurriculum expectations cannot be reached. Asthe students' interactive journals suggest, thepurposes for literacy that emerge are likely tobe ones that we all consider important. Thecritical difference is in terms of the intrinsicmtivation that is activated when studentsparticipate with their teachers as educationaltheorists (Erickson & Shultz. 1992; Nicholls &Hazzard, 1993; Oldfather, 1995). As theorists,they help define purposes, set goals. and makechoices within the given structures based ontheir own experiences, interests, and growingability to reflect on their own learning.

References

Allen, J. B., Shockley, B., & Michaelove. B.('993). Engaging children. Portsmouth. NH:lIeinemann.

Anderson. R. C.. Hiebert, E. H.. Scott, J. A., &Wilkinson. I. A. G. (1985). Becoming a nationof readers: The report of the commission onreading. Washington, DC: The National Instituteof Education.

Atwell, N. (1985). Writing and reading from theinside out. In J. Hansen, T. Newkirk, & D.Graves(Eds.), Breaking ground: Teachers relate

reading and writing in the elementary school (pp.147-168). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.


. . .

Shared Inquiry 21

Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Writing, reading,

and learning with adolescents. Portsmouth, NH:Boynton/Cook.

Banks, J. (1989). Integrating the curriculum withethnic content: Approaches and guidelines. In J.Banks & C. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural educa-tion: Issues and perspectives (pp. 189-207).Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary languagedevelopment in promoting educational successfor language minority students. In CaliforniaState Department of Education, Office of Bilin-gual Education (Ed.), Schooling and languageminority students: A theoretical framework (pp.3-50). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination,and Assessment Center, California State Univer-sity.

Dyson, A. H. (1989). Multiple worlds of childwriters: Friends learning to write. Columbia,NY: Teachers College Press.

El ley, W. B., & Mangubhai, F. (1983). The impactof reading on second-language learning. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 19, 53-67.

Erickson, F., & Shultz, J. (1992). Students' experi-ence of the curriculum. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.),Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 465-485). New York: Macmillan.

Five, C. (1986). Fifth graders respond to a changedreading program. Harvard Educational Review,56, 395-405.

Hudson-Ross, S., Cleary L., & Casey, M. (1993).Children's voices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Krashen, S. (1981). Bilingual education and second-language acquisition theory. In California StateDepartment of Education, Office of BilingualEducation (Ed.), Schooling and language minor-ity students: A theoretical framework (pp. 51-82). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemiration,and Assessment Center, California State University.

McCombs, B. L., & Marzano, R. J. (1990). Put-ting the self in self-regulated learning: The selfas agent in integrating will and skill. Educational

Psychologist, 25, 51-69.Nicholls, J. B., & Hazzard, S. P. (1993). Educa-

tion as adventure: Lessons from the secondgrade. New York: Teachers College Press.

Nicholls, J. B., Patashnick, M., & Nolen, S. B.(1985). Adolescents' theory of education. Jour-nal of Educational Psychology, 77, 683-692.

Oldfather, P. (1991). Students' perceptions of theirown reasons/purposes for being or not beinginvolved in learning activities: A qualitativestudy of student motivation. Dissertation Ab-stracts International, 52, 853A.

Oldfather, P. (1993a). What students say aboutmotivating experiences in a whole languageclassroom. The Reading Teacher, 46, 672-681.

Oldfather, P. (1993b, April). Facilitating participa-tion and ownership through engaging students asco-researchers. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Atlanta, GA.

Oldfather, P. (1994, April). Spinning plates orlaunching ships? Outcomes of motivation forliteracy learning. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, New Orleans, LA.

Oldfather, P. (1995). Songs come back most tothem: Students' experiences as motivation re-searchers. Theory into Practice, 34(2), 131-137.

Oldfather, P., & Dahl, K. (1994). Toward a socialconstructivist reconceptualization of intrinsicmotivation for literacy learning. Journal ofReading Behavior: A Journal of Literacy, 26,139-158.

Oldfather, P., & McLaughlin, J. (1993). Gainingand losing voice: A longitudinal study of stu-dents' continuing impulse to learn across elemen-


23

Thomas & OldfatherINIIMIIMMINION11111111111111111,

tary and middle level contexts. Research inMiddle Level Education, 17, 1-25.

Paley, V. (1989). White teacher. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Paley, V. (1990). The boy who would be a helicop-ter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Short, K., & Pierce, K. (1990). Talking aboutbooks: Creating literate communities. Ports-mouth, NH: Heinemann.

Taylor, D. (1993). From the child's point of view.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Thomas S. (1993). Rethinking assessment: Teachersand students helping each other through the"sharp curves of life." Learning DisabilitiesQuarterly, 16, 257-279.

Thomas S. (1994). Knowing learners, knowingourselves: Teachers' perceptions of change intheory and practice resulting from authenticassessment [CD-ROM] (Doctoral dissertation,The Claremont Graduate School, CA). Disserta-tion Abstracts International, 55(05), 1188A.

Weade, G. (1992). Locating learning in the timesand spaces of teaching. In H. H. Marshall (Ed.),Redefining student learning: Roots of educationalchange (pp. 87-118). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Children's Books Cited

Fox, P. (1984). One-eyed cat . New York: Dell.Little, J. (1989). Different dragons. New York:

Puffin.Macaulay, D. (1988). The way things work. Boston:

Houghton Mifflin.Martin, A. M. (1986-1991). The babysitters club

(Series). New York: Scholastic, Inc.Pascal, F. (1986-1991). Sweet Valley twins (Se-

ries). New York: Bantam Books.Robinson, B. (1988). Best Christmas pageant ever.

New York: HarperCollins.Wallace, B. (1987). Ferret in the bedroom, lizard in

the fridge. New York: Minstrel.


30

Shared Inquiry 23

APPENDIX

Student Questionnaire for Shared Inquiry:Evaluating My Own Rzading

Self-Selected Reading

1. Tell me about your self-selected reading so far this year. How do you feel about the quantity,quality, variety? Do you like choosing your own books? How do you choose them?

2. What was your favorite book so far? Why?

3. What was your least favorite book? Why? Did you finish it? If so, why'?

4. What problems have you run into in your independent reading?

5. How do you feel about yourself as an independent reader?

6. How do you compare self-selected reading to the shared reading we do in class?

7. What are your goals for independent reading for the rest of the school year?

Shared or Whole-Class Reading

1. How do you feel about the reading we've done together so far this year? Think aboutquantity, quality, and variety.

1. What was your favorite book so far? Why?

3. What was your least favorite book? Why?

4. What reading problems have you had?

5. Look at your reading logs. What do they show about you as a reader? You might want tonumber examples in your log in bright ink and make comments about specific entries here.

6. How does listening to your classmates' ideas and interpretations help you as a reader?

7. How do you feel about yourself as a reader in a community of readers? What are yourstrengths? What would you like to improve?

8. What are your goals for the rest of the year as a member of our class reading community?


3 1

NRRC NationalReading ResearchCenter318 Aderhold, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-71253216J. M. Patterson Building, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

3 2

Documents

MD. 96 32p. - ERIC · 2014. 5. 14. · DOCUMENT RESUME. ED 393 078. CS 012 391. AUTHOR Thomas, Sally; Oldfather, Penny TITLE Enhancing Student and Teacher Engagement in Literacy