Children learning with peers: The confluence of peer status and literacy competence within small-group literacy events

R eading, once conceptualized primarily as a perceptual task, is now viewed as an in-teractive and constructive process influenced by the textual, language, social, andcultural contexts in which it occurs (Pearson & Stephens, 1994; Ruddell & Unrau,1994). Thus, what counts as reading is defined and understood by examining thesituation-specific activities and interactions in which children are involved as theyparticipate in reading events (Heap, 1991). This perspective broadens the lensthrough which reading is viewed and reveals the inadequacy of conceiving readingas an “object-in-itself ” (Heap, 1991, p. 126).

This attention to the contextual dimensions of reading is due in part to theinfluence of sociocultural conceptions of learning (Forman & Cazden, 1994).Researchers guided by such conceptions have focused attention on the interactionsthat occur between and among individuals as they participate in literacy events. Asa result, there is enhanced appreciation of the value of these interactions and theinfluence they have on children’s literacy development. In response, teachers arecreating learning environments where their students have opportunities to interactwith one another as they participate in literacy events. Thus, activities once per-formed individually now often entail opportunities for social interactions.

These social interactions between and among children as they engage togetherin literacy events have been the focus of much research. However, few literacy re-searchers who have interpreted this behavior have considered issues related to the in-dividual psychology of the children involved. Such issues, although not readilyvisible, influence the children’s interactions in substantive ways because the childrenbring to these literacy events a view of themselves formed by their perceptions of howothers accept them and of how competent they are in completing the assigned task

Reading Research QuarterlyVol. 38, No. 2

April/May/June 2003©2003 International Reading Association

(pp. 208–234)

C h ild ren le a rn in g w ith p e e r s:T h e c o n flu en ce o f p e e r s ta tu sa n d lite ra c y co m p e te n c e w ith insm a ll-g ro u p lite ra c y e v e n tsMONA W. MATTHEWS, JOHN KESNERGeorgia State University, Atlanta, USA

208

209

This study investigated the interactions of 16 first-grade children during one academic year as they participated inliteracy events with their peers. Of particular interest was how children with different levels of acceptance from theirpeers and different levels of reading achievement experienced collaborative peer-only literacy events. A sociocul-tural perspective guided the investigation. Constructs related to the individual psychology of the children werealso considered to gain insights into experiences of individual children. Data included 138 hours of classroom ob-servations, video and/or audiotapes of the children as they participated in collaborative literacy events, assessmentsof the children’s reading ability, and assessments of the children’s acceptance by their peers. A constant compara-tive method guided the data analysis. The analysis suggests that issues related to peer acceptance and readingcompetence complicate children’s interactions during collaborative literacy events. While interactions during theseevents are a source of support for some, they may be a source of stress for others. Concepts critical to understand-ing how children with different levels of acceptance from peers and different levels of reading achievement experi-ence these events are presented. Implications for classroom teachers and for researchers are presented.

Children learningwith peers: Theconfluence of peerstatus and literacycompetence withinsmall-groupliteracy events

Este estudio investigó las interacciones de 16 niños de primer grado durante un año académico, mientras partici-paban en eventos de alfabetización con sus pares. Resultó particularmente interesante la forma en la que niños condiferentes grados de aceptación por parte de sus pares y diferentes niveles de lectura experimentaron los eventoscolaborativos de alfabetización. Una perspectiva sociocultural guió la investigación. Asimismo, con el fin de obte-ner conocimientos sobre las experiencias de cada niño, se consideraron conceptualizaciones relacionadas con lascaracterísticas psicológicas de los niños. Los datos incluyeron 138 horas de observaciones en el aula, registros deaudio y/o video de los niños mientras participaban en eventos colaborativos de alfabetización, evaluaciones de lahabilidad de lectura de los niños y de la aceptación de los niños por parte de sus pares. El método comparativoconstante guió el análisis de los datos. El análisis sugiere que las cuestiones relacionadas con la aceptación de los paresy la competencia en lectura complican las interacciones de los niños durante los eventos colaborativos de alfabeti-zación. En tanto que las interacciones durante estos eventos son una fuente de apoyo para algunos, pueden ser unafuente de ansiedad para otros. Se presentan conceptos críticos para comprender cómo niños con diferente nivel deaceptación por parte de sus pares y diferentes niveles de lectura experimentan estos eventos. Se presentan tambiénimplicancias para los docentes e investigadores.

Niños que aprendencon sus pares: Laconfluencia delestatus de los paresy la competencia enlectoescritura en elcontexto de eventosde alfabetización engrupos pequeños

Diese Abhandlung untersuchte die gegenseitige Beeinflussung von 16 Kindern der ersten Klasse im Laufe einesSchuljahres, wie sie sich in Schreib-/Leseauseinandersetzungen mit ihren Mitschülern beteiligten. Von besonderemInteresse war es, wie Kinder mit unterschiedlichen Einstufungen in der Akzeptanz seitens ihrer Mitschüler und un-terschiedlichen Stufen an Leseleistung kollaborative, nur aus Mitschülern bestehende Unterrichtsabläufe erlebten.Die Untersuchung orientierte sich an einer sozio-kulturellen Ausrichtung. Die Richtlinien bezogen auf die indi-viduelle Psychologie der Kinder, wurden ebenfalls herangezogen, um so Einsichtnahme in die gemachtenErfahrungen der einzelnen Kinder zu erlangen. Die Daten erfaßten 138 Stunden an Beobachtungen imKlassenraum, Video- und Audiobandaufnahmen von den Kindern während sie an gemeinsamen Schreib-/Leseabläufen teilnahmen, Beurteilungen der Lesefähigkeit der Kinder und Beurteilungen der Akzeptanz derKinder seitens ihrer Mitschüler. Eine konstante, komparative Methode diente als Leitfaden für die Datenanalyse.Die Analyse ergibt, daß auf die Mitschülerakzeptanz und Lesekompetenz bezogene Sachverhalte dasZusammenwirken der Kinder während der kollaborativen Schreib-/Leseabläufe eher komplizieren. WährendWechselwirkungen im Verlauf dieser Auseinandersetzungen für einige Schöpfungsquellen der Ermunterung sind,können sie eine Quelle von Stress für andere sein. Kritische Konzepte über das Verstehen, wie Kinder unter-schiedlicher Stufen der Akzeptanz gegenüber ihren Mitschülern - und unterschiedlicher Stufen in der Leseleistung- diese Auseinandersetzungen erfahren, werden dargestellt. Implikationen für die Klassenlehrer und für Forschersind angeführt.

Kinder lernen untersich: Konflux desEbenbürtigkeits-status, Schreib- undLesekompetenzinnerhalb kleinerGruppenausein-andersetzungen

ABSTRACTS

210

Cette étude porte sur les interactions de 16 enfants de 1° année tout au long d’une année académique alors qu’ilsparticipent à des situations de littératie avec leurs pairs. On s’intéresse particulièrement à ce qui se passe lors de situa-tions de littératie coopérative entre enfants ayant différents niveaux d’acceptation de leurs pairs et différentsniveaux de maîtrise de l’écrit. La recherche a été conduite dans une perspective socioculturelle. On a aussi pris enconsidération des données relatives à la psychologie individuelle des enfants pour avoir plus d’idées sur les expérien-ces de chacun. Les données comportent 138 heures d’observation en classe, des enregistrements audio et vidéo desenfants lors de situations de littératie coopérative, des évaluations du savoir lire des enfants, et des évaluations de l’ac-ceptation des enfants par leurs pairs. L’analyse des données a été faite d’un bout à l’autre de façon comparative. Cetteanalyse suggère que les questions relatives à l’acceptation par les pairs et le niveau de savoir lire compliquent les in-teractions des enfants dans une situation de littératie coopérative. Alors que les interactions dans ces situationsconstituent un soutien pour les uns, elles peuvent être source de stress pour les autres. Une conceptualisation critiqueest présentée afin de comprendre comment des enfants de différents différents niveaux d’acceptation par leurspairs et de différents niveaux de maîtrise de l’écrit vivent ces situations. On expose enfin des implications pour lesprofesseurs des écoles et pour les chercheurs.

Apprendre avecd’autres enfants :

confluence dustatut auprès des

pairs et de lacompétence enlittératie lors de

situations delittératie en petit

groupe

ABSTRACTS

(Bowlby, 1973; Cohen, 1997; Feeney & Noller,1996). These perceptions influence the children’s re-sponses to their peers as well as their expectations ofhow others will respond to them. Thus, to understandliteracy events designed to maximize social interac-tions, a consideration of the psychology of the indi-vidual children is warranted. In this study we took thisperspective to examine the social interactions that oc-curred between and among a group of first-grade chil-dren as they participated in collaborative literacyevents. Of particular interest was how children at dif-ferent levels of the classroom peer-status hierarchy andthe classroom reading-status hierarchy experience in-tended collaborative literacy events.

Conceptual frameworkBecoming literate is as much about the interac-

tions one has with others around oral and writtenlanguage as it is about mastering the alphabetic sys-tem. Such a view is supported by sociocultural con-ceptions of learning. Described in this section are (a)concepts of this theory that contribute to the con-ceptual framework for this study, (b) how these con-cepts influence the development of children’sunderstandings about literacy and their understand-ings of themselves as individuals, and (c) how theseunderstandings about literacy and themselves con-verge to affect the development of a child’s literateself.

Core concepts of a sociocultural theoryof learning

Learning, from a sociocultural perspective, is asocial enterprise (Vygotsky, 1986; Wertsch, 1991).Individuals learn about the world they live in andthe values of their culture by interacting with themore experienced members of that communitythrough everyday activities. Key to understandingthis axiom of sociocultural theory are the concepts ofcontext, action, and mediation.

From a sociocultural perspective, context ismore than the physical space in which an event oc-curs. Context is the external manifestation of whatthe members of the culture value (Vygotsky, 1986).These values are represented in the ways the contextsare organized, the expectations for how one behaveswithin them, and the ends to which the behaviorsare aimed (Rogoff, 1990). Thus, if one seeks to un-derstand individuals’ behavior, one must observethem as they participate in the daily routine activities

of their community. Context, then, is a dual con-struct representing the physical boundaries of an ac-tivity as well as the intellectual or internal structuresof what is valued by the members of that culture(Wells, 1999). Hence, considering both the physicaland the intellectual components of context is essen-tial to understanding the meaning of context from asociocultural perspective. Studying the context of aclassroom as it influences students’ behavior musttherefore entail observing how they participate in thedaily routine events of the classroom.

Smagorinsky and O’Donnell-Allen (2000)raised an issue that adds complexity to this constructof context, an issue that they maintain is particularlyrelevant to understanding students’ classroom behav-ior. They maintain not only that context simultane-ously represents the physical space in which anactivity occurs as well the cultural values of a commu-nity but also that ideally, from the community’s view-point, the classroom provides opportunities toreinforce and therefore preserve the values of thatcommunity. Consequently, teachers often create in-structional contexts with the intent to encourage val-ued ideals. However, the physical setting is whereindividuals who may possess values different from orin conflict with the teacher or other students cometogether to participate in the activity. The result is theconvergence of overlapping personal cultural histo-ries, histories that may have a stronger influence overthe behavior of the individuals than do the culturalvalues the teacher intends to reinforce. When this oc-curs, the behavior of the participants may challengeor even subvert the pedagogical aim of the teacher.

Smagorinsky and O’Donnell-Allen (2000) ar-gued that the social contexts within these activitiesshould be expanded to include these overlapping per-sonal histories that are important in understandingclassroom contexts. Although this issue may add tothe complexity of interpreting a specific context froma sociocultural perspective, we argue that it is usefuland important in understanding the behavior of theindividuals engaged in collaborative literacy events.

As implied thus far in our discussion of context,the behaviors exhibited by the individuals within spe-cific contexts provide insights into the meanings of anevent from a sociocultural perspective (Vygotsky,1978, 1986; Wertsch, 1991). Wertsch asserted that itis through an analysis of these behaviors, which he re-ferred to as actions, that an event is fully understood.He stated, “When action is given analytic priority, hu-man beings are viewed as coming into contact with,and creating, their surroundings as well as themselvesthrough the actions in which they engage” (p. 8).From this perspective, action is more than the “doing

Children learning with peers: The confluence of peer status and literacy competence within small-group literacy events 211

of something, [or the] being in motion” to cite onedictionary’s definition (Costello, 1991, p. 14). Actionsare the raw material from which life is experiencedand from which understandings are developed.Moreover, actions cannot be clustered as though theyrepresent a single concept; rather, actions are varied,have different purposes, and prompt differentresponses.

Habermas (1984) described four types of action.Teleological actions are those acts directed toward thephysical or objective world with an intended goal.Dramaturgical actions are those related to the individ-ual’s presentation of self to the world. When individu-als exhibit dramaturgical actions, their focus is on anaudience and the self they want to present to that au-dience. Normative actions represent the norms or ex-pectations for how members of a particular groupshould behave in particular situations. Such acts arenot objective; they are subjective and based on the ex-pectations of the given group. The fourth action de-scribed by Habermas is communicative action. Whentwo or more individuals interact around any of theother three actions, they are involved in communica-tive action. While engaged in a communicative action,“[t]he actors seek to reach an understanding about theaction situation and their plans of action in order tocoordinate their actions by way of agreement”(Habermas, 1984, p. 86).

As important as the contexts and the actions ofthe individuals are, the ways these actions are medi-ated are also important (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986). Thetools that mediate the action (e.g., oral language, nu-meric systems, writing utensils) “shape the action inessential ways” (Wertsch, 1991, p. 12). The meaningascribed to the tools derives from the cultural andsocial contexts in which they occur. Thus, from a so-ciocultural perspective of learning, the wellspring ofcognitive development is the experiences of everydaylife and the mediation of these experiences via thetools and language defined and valued by the cultur-al and social contexts in which the experiences occur(Wertsch, 1991).

Understandings of literacy: Others’influence on the child’s literacydevelopment

Diaz, Neal, and Amaya-Williams (1990) drewfrom Vygotsky’s theory to provide further explana-tion of how children’s interactions with others influ-ence the understandings they develop about literacy.They asserted that infants’ initial spontaneous re-sponses to stimuli within their environment eventu-

ally are controlled and mastered as they mature.Basic cognitive processes are ultimately and “substan-tially transformed in the context of socialization andeducation” (p. 127).

This process whereby the infants’ initial spon-taneous responses to environmental stimuli are grad-ually mastered and ultimately self-regulatedillustrates two major themes in Vygotsky’s theory(Wertsch, 1991). One is that higher mental func-tions can be understood if “one understands theirorigin and the transitions they have undergone”(Wertsch, 1991, p. 29). A second is that individualstransmit the meaning and relevance of these highercognitive processes to others in speech, social inter-action, and the processes of cooperative activity(Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). An example of howboth themes are illustrated in literacy developmentcomes from the work of Pellegrini and Galda (1998).They surmised on the basis of their research that theliterate language used by young children during sto-ry reading with their mothers was used later as chil-dren played with peers. Moreover, this literatelanguage was a precursor to later literacy develop-ment and predicted the children’s achievement onschool-based reading and writing measures. This ex-ample illustrates how social interactions within liter-acy events affect subsequent conceptions of literacydevelopment. Also illustrated is how the tools (i.e.,the mediational means) used by more knowledgeableothers during these interactions (e.g., the books andlanguage used by parents during storybook reading)influence the ways individuals come to understandhow their culture defines literacy and ultimately howthey are likely to define literacy.

Understandings of self: The individualpsychology of the child

Interactions with others also influence chil-dren’s understandings about themselves in relation toothers. Baldwin (1897) and Cooley (1902) assertedthat one comes to know oneself through interactionswith others. They referred to this process as thelooking-glass self. Children’s perception of them-selves is influenced by how they think others seethem. The concentrated interactions that occur ingroup activities both inside and outside the class-room provide many mirrors from which childrenbase much of their understanding of who they are.

Bowlby (1973), in his work on attachment rela-tionships, described how an internal working modelof the world develops based on an individual’s interac-tions with the world. This model is self-perpetuating,

212 Reading Research Quarterly APRIL/ MAY/JUNE 2003 38/2


as behaviors based on expectations from this modeltend to produce outcomes that serve to support andreinforce the model (Feeney & Noller, 1996). Thus,children participate in various events with a model oftheir world and their place in it. The behaviors of oth-ers, if not directly reinforcing the model, tend to beperceived in such a way as to perpetuate the model.

Expectation states theory (Berger, Wagner, &Zelditch, 1985) provides a formalized description ofhow the success or failure of previous interactionsgives children a set of expectations about how otherswill react and behave toward them. Children’s re-sponse to these expectations and how others respondto them can become self-fulfilling prophecies. Achild who expects others to be critical or rejectingmay perceive the neutral behaviors of others in sucha way as to meet their expectations, and thus rein-force them. Further, a child’s negative perceptions ofothers may result in behaviors that generate negativeattitudes and behaviors by others toward the child.These patterns in behavior continue unless the cycleof interactions is altered.

Children’s history of performance in activitieswith others also influences their expectations or ori-entations toward their potential for success or failurein the activities. Some children may enter with ahelpless orientation in which their experience with adifficult task overwhelms them and prevents themfrom being successful in the activity. They attributetheir difficulty with a task as a lack of ability. Theyexhibit less persistence in completing such tasks andare more passive when faced with difficult tasks.Other children may approach tasks with a masteryorientation. They are consumed with the strategiesand processes necessary to complete activities and areless concerned with the outcome. They attribute fail-ure to lack of effort. A difficult task increases theirtask persistence and involvement. Other childrenmay enter tasks with a performance orientation.They are focused on achieving, as Henderson andDweck (1990) stated, a winning outcome and arenot concerned with the process. Similarly, these chil-dren are more likely to dominate and overshadowless able members of a peer group.

These descriptions of children’s task orientationwere supported in a study investigating performanceand selection of tasks. Ames (1992) found that chil-dren with a performance orientation were more likelyto choose tasks that they knew they could do, andthey would try to outperform others. Children with amastery orientation chose more challenging tasks andwere more inwardly focused on the task. That is, theywere not interested in the performance of others who

were performing the same task. Rather, they were fo-cused only on their own progress.

Development of children’s literate selves Bruner (1996) provided insights on the signifi-

cance of children experiencing success in the activitiesthey pursue. He maintained that two principal compo-nents of self are the ability to initiate and participate inan activity and the evaluation of that participation.Because the school is a major arena in which childreninitiate, carry out, and evaluate their participation inactivities, Bruner asserted that the school plays a majorrole in the child’s construction of self.

We contend that if these ideas of self-construc-tion are applied to children’s development as readersand writers, then as children initiate and carry out lit-eracy activities they are in the process of developingtheir “literate selves” (Matthews & Kesner, 2000, p.383). Therefore, when children interact with othersaround literacy, they develop expectations about theirperformance as readers and writers. If a child experi-ences success or failure during these interactionsaround reading and writing, this affects substantivelya child’s perceptions of self as well as how a child in-terprets future events involving reading and writing.

Children who belong to what Smith (1988) re-ferred to as the literacy club have well-developed lit-erate selves, and as members of this club, they“regard themselves as the kind of people who readand write” (p. 128). Children’s past success leadsthem to expect future success and with this percep-tion of success comes increased interest and involve-ment in literacy activities.

In summary, a sociocultural perspective oflearning focuses attention on the significance of one’sinteractions with others. When these interactions oc-cur around literacy, children’s understandings of lit-erate processes are developed and their perceptionsof who they are as literate people are created. Theseinteractions also influence children’s perceptionsabout themselves in relation to others and ultimatelyperceptions of who they are as literate people.

In the subsequent sections we discuss the bene-fits to children that accrue when they interact withtheir peers during literacy events. We also examinethe elements that add complexity to such events,most notably how the social hierarchies withingroups affect the patterns of interactions betweenchildren during these events.

The social life of the classroomDyson (1993, 1995, 1999) has been at the

forefront of much of the research that explores thesocial dimension of literacy learning. Her interest inthe social lives of young children as they participatein literacy events has illuminated the intricacies ofthese events and reveals how children use social re-sources such as other children, along with symbolicresources such as oral language, drawings, and writ-ten language, to create textual representations oftheir lives, their fantasies, and the world.

Researchers who investigated literacy environ-ments developed to maximize children’s opportuni-ties to interact with their peers have identified severalbenefits of interacting with others during literacyevents. These benefits include increased motivation(e.g., Fisher & Hiebert, 1990; Sharan & Shaulov,1990) and assistance in creating literacy products(Matthews, 1995). In addition, children who workwith peers during literacy events are provided modelsthat expand the possibilities they have for their ownbehavior (Turner, 1995).

To understand how environments that provideopportunities for children to work together are differ-ent from traditional environments, Wells, Chang, andMaher (1990) investigated fourth-grade students asthey participated with peers to complete research pro-jects about animals. They described learning in tradi-tional classrooms as unidirectional. Information istransmitted from the teacher or a text to the students.Learning in the collaborative inquiry groups they ob-served provided multiple opportunities for the stu-dents to read, write, and talk as they researched theirtopics. As a consequence, learning in these groups wasmore active. For example, an idea offered by one stu-dent was expanded on or clarified by an idea from an-other student. Students constructed knowledge ratherthan absorbed it. Moreover, the collaborative inquiryprocess used in the classroom was stimulated by theconstant flow of new information offered by theteacher, the texts, and the children.

Additional support for peer interaction isfound in investigations examining cooperative learn-ing. Cooperative learning experiences enable chil-dren to work cooperatively toward the completion ofa task (Kagan, 1992; Slavin, 1980). Children in-volved in cooperative learning experiences gain inachievement, develop improved relationships withmembers of other races, and have enhanced socialdevelopment (Johnson, Johnson, & Maruyama,1983; Sharan & Shaulov, 1990).

In a study of cooperative learning with third-grade students, Gillies and Ashman (2000) found that

children in structured cooperative learning groupsscored higher on measures of comprehension of ateacher-assigned task than did students in unstructuredcooperative groups. Children in the structured groupsreceived training on facilitating group work, whereasthe unstructured group did not. The researchers at-tribute the differences found to the children’s higherlevel of involvement in the structured groups. They be-lieved this higher level of involvement was due to thetraining received by the structured groups.

Tharp and Gallimore (1988) provided other in-sights on cooperative peer activities. They maintainedthat meaningful social interactions require partici-pants to resolve successfully both differences in opin-ions and the distribution of responsibility forcompleting a cooperative task. Garnica (1981) addedthat if cooperation and resolution are not achieved,trouble could result. Matthews (1995) detected trou-ble when she analyzed data related to how childrenwithin a multiage classroom assisted and collaboratedwith others as they participated with their classmatesin literacy events. When observational data were ana-lyzed along with data on the children’s peer status(i.e., the degree to which the children were acceptedor rejected by their peers), it became evident thatsome children used instructional time attempting tointeract with peers who ignored or rejected them in-stead of participating in literacy experiences. Thus,some children were thwarted in their attempts to par-ticipate in a classroom learning event because otherswere not interested in participating with them.

One explanation for children ignoring or re-jecting their classmates is found in investigations ex-ploring the social dynamics within classrooms.Groups seem to form hierarchies based on the mem-bers’ peer status. Thus, children who are liked bytheir peers are at the top of these hierarchies, andthose who are ignored or rejected are at the bottom(Erwin, 1993; Garnica, 1981). In addition, chil-dren’s responses to one another are influenced bypeer-status characteristics. Those who are neglectedare ignored by their peers, those who are rejected areresponded to in negative ways, and well-liked chil-dren are sought after as companions (e.g., Gronlund,1959; Putallaz & Gottman, 1981).

Rubin, Bukowski, and Parker (1998), in theirreview of the research related to young children’speer relationships, identified several factors that con-tribute to children’s status among their peers. Mostof this research seeks to identify relationships be-tween the children’s behavior and their peer status.The ways children with high status interact withtheir peers differ from the ways their low-status peersinteract. Children who are of high status and, thus,



well liked are socially competent and possess the so-cial skills needed for positive interactions with oth-ers. Their competence is the result of theirknowledge of the social skills needed to behave in so-cially sanctioned ways and to solve social tasks (e.g.,they can initiate a conversation and express emotionsin acceptable ways). In addition high-status childrenappear to possess more communicative skill when in-teracting with their peers. They often provide a ratio-nale for their responses or offer alternative ideaswhen they refuse invitations from peers. In contrast,children who are not well liked exhibit more aggres-sive behavior, argue more with their peers, and focusmore on their feelings rather than the feelings of oth-ers. Also significant, a child’s status appears to be sta-ble across contexts and over time. Therefore, thedegree of acceptance children receive in one setting islikely to be similar to that received in other settingsand across their school careers.

Cohen (1984, 1997) asserted that peer status isone of multiple characteristics that can influence in-teractions between and among students in class-rooms. Two other important characteristics areacademic status and social status. Academic status isthe degree of success children have with the schoolcurriculum relative to their classmates. Reading abili-ty is a cultural aspect of academic status because itoften determines students’ success when participat-ing in instructional activities and also because thereading ability of students is often used as a bench-mark to evaluate academic success (Cohen, 1984).Social status is related to the characteristics withwhich students enter school, such as gender, socioe-conomic level, and race.

The quality of the relationship children havewith others also appears to affect their achievement inschool. Guided by a Child Time Environment mod-el, Ladd, Birch, and Buhs (1999) investigated directand indirect influences of the model’s elements onkindergarten children’s school achievement.Generally, the model describes how the characteristicswith which children enter school influence the be-havior the children exhibit in school, which in turnhas consequences for how others respond to them.These responses influence the children’s behavior dur-ing instructional events and ultimately the children’sachievement in school. Their research supported thepremise of their model, but they determined that re-jection rather than acceptance had the strongest con-sequence for children’s school achievement.

Researchers who have investigated how the na-ture and quality of children’s relationships with oth-ers influence interactions during literacy eventsillustrate how these relationships can be either a

source of support or a barrier to the participants. Forexample, several have compared friends and non-friends working on collaborative writing tasks.Hartup, Daiute, Zajac, and Scholl (1995, as cited inHartup, 1996) examined differences in the talk sur-rounding the interactions and differences in the finalwritten product when pairs of 10-year-old childrencollaborated on writing tasks. Friends discussed thecontent more, engaged in less off-task behavior, andproffered more alternatives and elaborations. Thewritten products created by the friends focused moreon interpersonal relationships and contained morepersonal pronouns.

Jones and Pellegrini (1996) found differenceswhen they compared pairs of first-grade studentswho were friends with pairs who were acquaintancesinvolved in collaborative writing events. Althoughthese researchers focused on several dimensions ofthe collaborative process, the findings related to therelationship of the children revealed that when thechildren interacted with friends they used moremetacognitive talk (e.g., I guess) and more self-talk.

Pellegrini and Galda (1998) found similar re-sults when they examined differences between pairs ofkindergarten friends or acquaintances collaborating ona writing activity. Friends used more linguistic termssuch as “talk louder” and cognitive terms such as “letme think,” which were significantly correlated toproximal and distal measures of literacy development.

Other literacy researchers interested in thequality of the relationships between and among chil-dren examined larger groups of children and added afocus on their reading competence. West (1996), inher study of the helping behaviors of children in athird-grade classroom, described the experiences oftwo children, Elizabeth and Mack, who were at op-posite ends of the classroom’s peer-status hierarchy.Elizabeth was a well-liked child who was also a com-petent reader and writer. She was successful in gain-ing assistance from her peers, and peers were willingto accept her assistance. Mack, on the other hand,was a low-status child, and his attempts to gain assis-tance or provide assistance often were ignored or re-jected. Exacerbating Mack’s problems was his lowreading ability. Unlike Elizabeth, who had sufficientliteracy ability to perform the tasks, Mack needed hispeers’ assistance when participating in peer-only lit-eracy events. If Mack did not receive help, he had torely on his own limited literacy ability. As a result, heoften chose to perform tasks that did not tax his lim-ited reading ability, such as coloring pictures.

Related responses were chronicled in our de-scription (Matthews & Kesner, 2000) of Sammy, alow-achieving reader who was neglected by his peers.

When Sammy participated with peers during literacyevents, his peers often ignored his suggestions, per-formed tasks for him, and provided unsolicited help.He rarely repeated a suggestion and often sat quietlyas his peers answered for him or usurped his turn.

In summary, learning from a sociocultural per-spective is a social enterprise. Individuals in concertwith others acquire knowledge about their world byparticipating in routine daily events. Teachers, re-sponding to the theoretical significance of social in-teractions, have expanded opportunities for theirstudents to work with others during literacy events.Students derive cognitive, affective, and motivationalbenefits from interacting with others as they developtheir literacy competence. Principles related to theindividual psychology of the child and research con-ducted outside of the literacy field suggest that issuesbeyond the group influence the behavior of childrenduring these social interactions. This researchdemonstrates that groups form hierarchies aroundthe peer- and academic-status characteristics of thechildren within these groups and these hierarchieshave consequences for how children respond to oneanother. In addition, each child within these groupsenters literacy events with a history of interactionswith others, a history that creates expectations forhow the child will respond to others as well as howothers will respond to the child.

We found two studies (Matthews, 1995; West,1996) that investigated issues related to peer status inliteracy contexts within whole classrooms, and nei-ther of these studies simultaneously took into ac-count sociocultural theory, individual childpsychology, and peer and academic status to under-stand collaborative literacy events. Guiding the pre-sent investigation was our belief that incorporatingthis multiple perspective should provide a deeper un-derstanding of these events and therefore offer in-sights useful to those who design literacy events inclassrooms. Specifically, we examined the interac-tions of a group of first-grade children as they partic-ipated in collaborative literacy events. These eventsrequired the children to coordinate their behavior inorder to complete the activity. Sometimes their ef-forts resulted in the creation of a product, such as aword web. In other instances, the children had totake turns to perform the activity such as when theyplayed a language arts board game. In all instances,the teacher formed the groups. We refer to theseevents as collaborative literacy events, reflecting whatwe soon realized was their intent if not their out-come. The teacher did not plan which children shewould place in the group. However, all of the groups

observed had at least one child the teacher identifiedin the final interview as an independent worker.

In this investigation, we use the term peer in anarrow sense to describe the relationship of the chil-dren as similar-age classmates, rather than in thebroad sense, implying equality in cognitive, social, oreconomic status. The following question guided theinvestigation: How do children at different levels ofthe classroom peer-status hierarchy and children atdifferent levels of the classroom reading-status hierar-chy experience intended collaborative literacy events?

MethodParticipants

This investigation was carried out for one aca-demic year in a first-grade classroom located in aschool system outside a large metropolitan area inthe southeastern United States. There were 366 chil-dren enrolled in the school; 26% qualified for free orreduced-cost lunch. Sixteen children, 9 boys and 7girls, were participants. Although there were 19 chil-dren in the classroom, 2 were often out of the roomduring the morning literacy program and 1 child’sparents refused permission to participate. Six chil-dren, 4 boys (Brad, Evan, Lance, and Sammy) and 2girls (Candace and Lilly) were selected to be the fo-cus of the investigation. (All names are pseudo-nyms.) Brad and Evan were selected because theyexperienced the highest levels of peer acceptanceamong all of the children in the class. Candace wasselected because she was the girl with the highest lev-el of peer acceptance. The differences in reading abil-ity among these three children were minimal in thefall when the focal children were selected. All three(Brad, Evan, and Candace) performed at comparablelevels on the phonemic assessments, the sight-wordassessments, and the text reading level assessments(see Table 1). Lance and Lilly were selected becausethey experienced some of the lowest levels of accep-tance from their peers. The fall reading assessmentsindicated that Lance was performing at the high av-erage of his class in reading, whereas Lilly was per-forming at the bottom of her class. The experiencesof Sammy, the sixth child, were reported in a previ-ous article (Matthews & Kesner, 2000).

Although six focal students were observed ex-tensively, data were gathered on all children presentduring the observed events. (Table 1 identifies the rel-ative peer status, relative reading competence, and thereading assessment data for the 13 children reportedon in this article.) All children and their teacher were



of European American descent. The teacher, Ms.Kendall (pseudonym), was a senior teacher in theschool. She has an advanced degree in early child-hood education and had taught for 19 years when theproject began. By all estimations, Ms. Kendall was anoutstanding educator. She was a mentor for newteachers and frequently was invited to represent thecounty at state-level activities. She also developed andled several county-level staff development courses.

Ms. Kendall created what Hallinan (1976)would describe as an open classroom. She organizedthe children in vertical groups when they were intheir seats. She provided opportunities for the chil-dren to interact with one another during one hour oflearning centers each day and during collaborativegroup activities that occurred several times each week.In addition the children were allowed to talk quietlywith one another as they worked at their desks.

When Ms. Kendall was asked to describe whatunderstandings about reading she wanted her studentsto gain from being in her classroom, she stated thatshe wanted the students to understand (a) print, (b)that we use print to communicate, and (c) that read-ing well is necessary for a person to be successful as anadult. She added that she is an avid reader and thatshe hoped to convey that love of reading to her stu-dents. Based on Mona’s (first author’s) observations of

Ms. Kendall’s reading instruction, she would describeMs. Kendall as a teacher who believed in a balance be-tween specific teaching of skills and the application ofthose skills in variety of individual, small-group, andwhole-group reading and writing experiences.

We characterized the classroom as well man-aged, with time rarely used for nonacademic tasks.Ms. Kendall’s classroom was selected because (a) thelanguage arts coordinator in Ms. Kendall’s schoolsystem identified her as an effective educator, (b) shebelieved that social interactions were an integralcomponent of a literacy program, and (c) she was in-terested in participating in the study. Furthermore,time in her classroom prior to and during the studyconfirmed that Ms. Kendall had a professional andcaring attitude toward her students. She was respect-ful in her interactions with the children and ex-pressed interest in the children showing respect fortheir classmates. These characteristics of the teacherenabled Mona to investigate the interactions of thechildren without concern that a negative attitude ofthe teacher would influence the ways the children in-teracted with one another.

All observations took place during the morningand early afternoon when literacy instruction oc-curred. The children began each day at their deskscompleting chalkboard work activities in which they

* Brad HS–AR 22 10 10 55 3 16* Evan HS–AR 17 9 5 54 3 18* Candace HS–HR 22 10 10 57 5 24

Bruce HS–HR 10 10 15 60 4 32Lewis HS–AR 20 10 0 56 3 18Caroline HS–AR 20 10 2 47 3 14

**Sammy NS–LR 0 0 2 20 B 3Laura NS–AR 22 9 4 50 NA 14

* Lilly LS–LR 21 0 1 20 2 7* Lance LS–HR 22 10 9 58 4 26

Michelle LS–LR 1 1 5 37 3 8Sarah LS–LR 0 26 0 4 2 7Todd LS–LR 1 0 0 20 2 NA

Note. HS = High Peer Status HR = High Reading CompetenceNS = Neutral Peer Status AR = Average Reading CompetenceLS = Low Peer Status LR = Low Reading CompetenceNA = Not Available

* Focal children* *The experiences of Sammy, one of the six focal children, are reported in Matthews and Kesner (2000).Note. Table 1 includes data on only the 13 children reported on in this article.

TABLE 1THE RELATIVE PEER STATUS, RELATIVE READING COMPETENCE, AND FALL AND SPRINGREADING ASSESSMENT DATA

Child’s relative peerstatus and reading

competence

Number of wordscorrectly segmented

Fall(22 items)

Spring(10 items)

SpringFall SpringFall

Number of sightwords identified out

of 60 presented

Highest reading levelread at 90% accuracy

reviewed skills previously taught. These included ac-tivities such as writing words in alphabetical orderand writing sentences with the weekly word wallwords. The literacy program included small-group,teacher-guided reading instruction; one hour oflearning centers with many reading and writing ac-tivities; independent reading; and peer-directedsmall-group literacy activities. These peer-directedliteracy activities were designed by the teacher butcompleted by small groups of children. Examples ofsuch activities included creating a word web, playinga language arts board game, or writing sentences us-ing the weekly word wall words. In addition, eachday the teacher read several books to the children,and she incorporated weekly word study activitiessuch as creating words from a set of letters and sort-ing words by common criteria.

Data collectionA naturalistic design guided the investigation.

This design enabled the meaning of the collaborativeliteracy work to derive from the events themselvesrather than from an a priori construct about the na-ture of such events (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Severaldata collection strategies were used to identify thechildren’s peer status, to describe the interactions ofthe children as they participated in literacy events,and to assess the children’s reading ability.

Peer statusPeer status is the relative acceptance or rejec-

tion of a child by her or his peers (Ladd & Coleman,1993). Three methods were used to identify the peerstatus of the children. One method was observingwith whom the children interacted when given unre-stricted opportunity and how they responded to oneanother during literacy events. A second method wasbased on teacher input; that is, asking the teacher atthe beginning of the year to identify the five mostpopular and the five least popular children. At theend of the school year, the teacher was asked to rankorder all children in the class by popularity. In thefall and the spring, the teacher identified friendshippatterns in the classroom.

The third, and common, method used to deter-mine peer status was peer nomination (Rubin et al.,1998). Using the procedure of Quay and Jarrett(1984), we asked individual children to sort pho-tographs of their classmates into three piles: bestfriend, friend, and not a friend. The inclusion of thenegative “not a friend” was necessary to distinguishbetween children who were ignored from those who

were rejected (Ladd & Coleman, 1993). We weighedthe potential problem posed by asking children toidentify children with whom they were not friendswith the importance of deriving this information. Thechildren were assured that their responses would bekept confidential, and they were asked not to discussthe activity or their designations with other children.

These sociometric data were gathered inNovember and again in June. These data were ana-lyzed in three steps. First, individual tallies werecomputed for each child in terms of their ratings byother children. The percentage of “best friend,”“friend,” and “not a friend” nominations was calcu-lated for each child in the sample. Second, each clas-sification category was given a numerical value (3 for“best friend,” 2 for “friend,” and 1 for “not afriend”). Finally, a multidimensional scaling tech-nique was utilized in which the child’s social positionin the classroom, relative to all other children in theclassroom, was plotted (see Figures 1 and 2 for theNovember and June plots). Thus, two children whowere plotted close together expressed a mutual posi-tive social relationship, and two children plotted far-ther apart expressed a less positive social relationship.

The peer status of each child is designated bythe following abbreviations: HS — high status, NS— neutral or ignored status, and LS — rejected orlow status. These were based on the classificationsused in early sociometric research (Rubin et al.,1998). Although these groupings appear somewhatsimplistic, we believed them to be the best represen-tation of social status in the classroom, given thenumber of children in the study. Mona’s extensiveobservations were the primary tool used to deter-mine sociometric rating. Data from the other sources(peer nomination and teacher’s designations) sup-ported Mona’s assessments.

Peer interactionsThe theoretical perspective that guided this re-

search placed analytic priority on the actions of indi-viduals as they participated in literacy events withtheir peers. The literacy events provided the contextin which the actions of individuals converged, there-by creating opportunities for social interaction. Thedefinition of social interaction is adapted from theone used by Bornstein (1989) and refers to the phys-ical and verbal actions used to engage another in aninterpersonal exchange. Therefore, the focus of thedata collection was on the children’s social interac-tions displayed in the ways they participated withtheir classmates during collaborative literacy events.The definition of participation used was adapted



from Dyson (1993) and included the role the chil-dren played, how the event proceeded, and how thechildren talked to and about one another.

Several methods were used to describe the par-ticipation of the children during literacy events. Theprimary method was participant observation. Monaobserved 55 of the 180 days of the school year.Approximately 138 hours of observational data werecollected. The observations began on the first day ofschool and continued until two days prior to the endof the school year.

Videotapes provided another source of infor-mation of the children’s participation. On several oc-casions during the school year, the children’sparticipation during collaborative literacy events wasvideotaped. Twelve events were videotaped inJanuary and February and six in May and June. Theteacher designed the events so that they reflected thetypes of literacy settings commonly used in the class-room. Audio recordings of the children’s social inter-actions augmented the videotape data and wereuseful when the language interactions on the videorecordings were unclear. Additional data sources in-cluded audio recordings of some literacy events, thecollection of artifacts created by the children duringthe events, and interviews with the teacher.

Reading abilityPrevious investigations (e.g., Ladd et al., 1999)

suggested an interaction between peer status andachievement with reading being a major factor in de-termining academic status (Cohen, 1984).Therefore, the children’s reading competence wasevaluated once in October and once in June. Themeasures used to assess the children’s reading compe-tence included an analysis of the children’s oral read-ing behavior (Clay, 1993), an estimate of theirrecognition of high-frequency words (Johns, 1994),and an assessment of their phonemic awareness(Yopp, 1995).

The designation of the children as high-, aver-age-, or low-achieving readers was determined by thechildren’s relative performance at the end of the yearon Johns’ (1994) assessment of high-frequencywords and their instructional reading level as deter-mined by the analysis of their oral reading behavior.Grade-level designations for the high-frequencywords are 20 words (preprimer), 40 words (primer),and 60 words (first reader) (Johns, 1994). The booksused to assess the children’s oral reading behaviorwere leveled according to Reading Recovery guide-lines. Johns, Lenski, and Elish-Piper (1999) providedthe approximate grade level for the Reading

Recovery levels: levels 4–8 (preprimer), levels 9–11(primer), and levels 12–20 (first reader). Childrenwere designated as high-achieving readers if theirrecognition of high-frequency words was at a firstreader level and their instructional reading level was

FIGURE 1CHILDREN’S FRIENDSHIP CLUSTERS, NOVEMBER

FIGURE 2CHILDREN’S FRIENDSHIP CLUSTERS, JUNE

Note. Each child is represented by a code in which B or G representsthe child’s gender: B1 = Lance, B2 = Brad, B3 = Joe, B4 = Todd, B5= Lewis, B6 = Russell, B7 = Sammy, B8 = Bruce, B9 = Evan, G1 =Laura, G2 = Michelle, G3 = Candace, G4 = Lilly, G5 = Sarah, G6 =Pamela, G7 = Caroline. Also, B6 and B9 overlap.

Note. Each child is represented by a code in which B or G representsthe child’s gender: B1 = Lance, B2 = Brad, B3 = Joe, B4 = Todd, B5= Lewis, B6 = Russell, B7 = Sammy, B8 = Bruce, B9 = Evan, G1 =Laura, G2 = Michelle, G3 = Candace, G4 = Lilly, G5 = Sarah, G6 =Pamela, G7 = Caroline. Also, G3 and G7 overlap.

greater than 20. Children were designated as aver-age-achieving readers if their recognition of high-fre-quency words was at a primer level and theirinstructional reading level was between 12 and 20.Children were designated as low-achieving readers iftheir recognition of high-frequency words was belowthe primer level and their instructional reading levelwas 13 or below. The phonemic awareness assess-ment was administered because this ability is highlypredictive of children’s later success in reading(Adams, 1990). Use of this measure in the fall en-abled Mona to identify children who might have dif-ficulty learning to read as the year progressed.

The designations of the children in this class-room as either high-, average-, or low-achievingreaders admittedly are broad and do not account forthe complexity of beginning reading behavior or therange of variables on which beginning readers candiffer. However, we believed that they were adequatefor identifying the children’s relative standing asreaders and therefore sufficient for the purposes ofthis investigation.

Researcher roleAs a former first-grade teacher, Mona entered

the classroom familiar with first-grade children’s be-havior and learning. Like the participants, she is aEuropean American. Unlike the participants, she isfrom an urban environment.

Once in the classroom, Mona assumed the roleof observer as participant (Junker, 1960). In otherwords, the children and the teacher understood thatshe was there to observe them as they worked and,like them, she had a job to do. Therefore, the partici-pant role was secondary to the observer role. Whenthe children entered the classroom on the first day ofschool, Mona was present. The teacher introducedher to the children and told them that she was inter-ested in how young children learned to read, andthat she was there to watch them work. They werealso told that she would not help them with theirwork. Consequently, Mona refrained from exhibit-ing teacher-like behaviors, such as spelling for themor correcting their behavior. This stance of interestedobserver is well established in the literature (e.g.,Dyson, 1993, 1999).

After the first week in the classroom, Monafreely moved around. The children became familiarwith her as the researcher with a clipboard. They of-ten would say hello when she entered the room, andthey quickly became aware that she would not helpthem with their work. Often a child would intercedeif a classmate asked her for assistance by saying, “You

know she won’t help you.” A frequent response forthe child was “I know.”

As the year progressed, Mona and the childrenbecame more personal in their interactions. The chil-dren talked with her about their new clothes andnew haircuts, and she shared information with thechildren. They learned that when she was not intheir classroom she worked with teachers to helpthem teach children how to read and that what shewas learning in their classroom was helping her.They also learned that she had two children, one ayear older than they.

Mona also had a comfortable and easy relation-ship with the classroom teacher. Ms. Kendall knewshe was interested in the interactions of the childrenrather than the teacher. The teacher also knew thatMona would not be able to talk specifically abouther work until the data collection phase of the re-search was complete. The teacher did not ask for,nor was she given, guidance in designing the centersin her classroom or the peer-only literacy events. Theonly guidance provided occurred during two meet-ings prior to the beginning of school when Monastated her interest in observing children performreading and writing activities without the direct in-volvement of the teacher. The teacher was left to in-terpret this request. This lack of specificity wasimportant because Mona was interested in observinga classroom environment established by the teacherrather than influenced by the observer.

John (second author) was primarily involved indata analysis and interpretation. His expertise in de-velopmental psychology complemented Mona’sknowledge about young children’s literacy develop-ment. John brought the lens of individual psycholo-gy to this study, so that the reciprocal effects of theindividual and the collaborative literacy activitiescould be considered fully.

Data analysisAnalysis of the data occurred throughout the

study and continued after data collection was com-pleted. A constant comparative method as describedby Strauss and Corbin (1990) guided the analysis ofthe data. Data analysis proceeded through threephases. Phase 1 occurred as the data were collected.Analytic priority was given to the interactions thatoccurred among the children. Mona read field noteseach day, and periodically she read several days offield notes to record preliminary thoughts about thedata. These preliminary analyses were used to focusfuture data collection as well as to confirm or discon-



firm these initial conclusions about what Mona wasseeing and our interpretations.

Early in Phase 1 the focus was to identify theways the children interacted during literacy eventswith their peers. Phase 1 was also the time when thedata were prepared for analyses after data collectionwas completed in the classroom (e.g., field noteswere typed, and video and audio recordings weretranscribed).

Phase 2 of data analysis began when data col-lection was completed. Initially, this involved reduc-ing the data by culling the collaborative literacyevents from all instances of peer-only literacy events.Twenty-three collaborative literacy events were iden-tified and analyzed. Audio or video transcripts wereavailable for nine of these events. Guidance for howto proceed during Phase 2 of the analysis came fromthe theoretical perspective that guided the designand implementation of the study. Wertsch (1991) as-serted that entry into an event is gained from ananalysis of the actions of the participants; thereforethis phase of data analysis began by opening up, orseparating, the multitude of actions exhibited by thechildren during these literacy events.

The children’s actions during the literacyevents were separated into three groups. These wereadapted from the four actions defined by Habermas(1984). One type of action related to the objects ofliteracy: the physical objects (e.g., pencils, paper,books) and the intellectual objects (e.g., words, sen-tences, ideas). The second group of actions related tothe personal, or to the individuals involved in theevent. These actions included any action that relatedto a specific child or that served to separate the childfrom the group. For example, a child complimentinganother child’s work or a child singing as he or sheworked was placed in this group. The third type ofaction related to the norms in the group. These ac-tions included actions related to identifying thescope of the work and the way the children shouldbehave. Habermas’s communicative acts were sub-sumed within the three groups because they were theverbal and nonverbal interactions between andamong children that occurred as the children per-formed the different actions. Dividing the multitudeof actions exhibited by the children into these threegroups allowed the larger event to be opened up, aprocess referred to as open coding by Strauss andCorbin (1990), so that smaller, more discrete por-tions of the event could be separated, compared andcontrasted. Although this initial coding involved theuse of categories adapted from Habermas, subse-quent analysis proceeded with the use of an induc-tive process characteristic of constant comparative

procedures, thereby allowing understandings aboutthese events to emerge from the data.

Once the actions were identified and sortedinto the three categories (actions related to the ob-jects of literacy, the individuals within the group, thenorms of the group), Mona asked questions relatedto the data to determine which and then how thesenow separate and discrete actions were related.Sample questions used during this phase of theanalysis included the following: What is the focus ofthis action? What is the child doing here? Were theseactions directed toward another person? To whom isan action directed? What action was initiated in re-sponse? What was the focus of this communicativeact? Next, similar actions were grouped together.Labels that captured these similarities were identifiedand served as subcategories. For example, many ofthe actions relating to the objects of literacy (i.e., thematerials and the letters and words discussed) werefocused on whose words or ideas would be used.These actions, derived from across the three largercategories, were then grouped into a subcategory welabeled “generating ideas.”

Once the subcategories were identified, the axi-al coding phase of the analysis began. The actionsnow grouped into subcategories were compared andcontrasted with the intent of putting the data backtogether in ways that provided a conceptual overviewof these intended collaborative literacy events. Toperform this portion of the analysis, we explored re-lations among the subcategories. Relations weresought between the conditions that preceded or fol-lowed an action, when and where an action oc-curred, what conditions intervened or influenced theaction, and what were the consequences of the ac-tion. Once these relationships were identified, it waspossible to create broader categories that describedhow peer status and reading competence intervenedduring the collaborative literacy events. The threeconcepts described in the results section representthis broader conceptual analysis of the children’s in-teractions during collaborative literacy events.

During Phase 3 of the analysis, the core catego-ry (i.e., the overarching theme or story line) wasidentified (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). This core cate-gory summarizes conceptually the overall message ofthis research. Significant time was spent rereadingthe data, consulting with a peer debriefer, and ex-ploring the meaning of the data by free writing touncover the ultimate message of the study. The corecategory or story line of this research is presented inthe final part of the results section.

Reliability of data analysisSeveral strategies outlined by Lincoln and

Guba (1985) were used to establish trustworthinessin the research findings. These included prolongedtime in the classroom, persistent observation, ongo-ing sessions with a peer debriefer, and triangulationof data sources. In addition, the videotape recordingsenabled the researcher to capture the interactions ofthe children so that they could be examined moreclosely. The video recordings also were used as “abenchmark against which later data analyses and in-terpretations [were]...tested for adequacy” (p. 313).

Results: The complex world ofcollaborative literacy events

In this section we discuss how the children’sstatus among their peers and their competence asreaders converged and appeared to influence chil-dren’s participation during intended collaborative lit-eracy events. We first describe how peer status andreading competence influence the decisions madeearly in an event. We then illustrate how these earlydecisions have very personal consequences for the in-dividual participants. Finally, we explain how theproducts of these events provide tangible evidence ofthe impact of status and competence, and followwith a discussion of what this means for the chil-dren’s developing conceptions of their literate selves.

Boundary setting: First stepsWe found that children enter these intended

collaborative literacy events with preconceived no-tions of their peer status and literacy competence.Further, their perceived notions, developed fromtheir history of experiences with others, are the lens-es through which they view the social interactionswithin these events. Thus, although these peer-statusand literacy competence characteristics are affectedby the context, they tend to be relatively stable acrosstime and across contexts (Cohen, 1997; Feeney &Noller, 1996).

These characteristics become salient at the onsetof the event, for as soon as the children come together,decisions must be made (e.g., deciding who goes firstor the meaning of the teacher’s instructions). Oftenthese decisions define the boundaries for the work andare tantamount to establishing the expectations forhow the children should participate and, ultimately, ifthat participation is a success or failure. The excerpts

that follow illustrate how peer status and reading com-petence influence these decisions.

The peer status of each child is designated asfollows: HS — high status, NS — neutral or ignoredstatus, and LS — rejected or low status. The readingcompetence of each child is designated as follows:HR — high reading competence, AR — averagereading competence, and LR — low readingcompetence.

Excerpt: Partner readingParticipants: Brad (HS–AR)

Bruce (HS–HR)Evan (HS–AR)

The teacher asks the children to partner read.Evan asks if three instead of two may read together.The teacher responds, “yes.” Evan, Brad, and Bruceimmediately team up, and the first decision is to de-termine the order in which they will read. Evanspeaks first and says to Bruce, “You read this page.”Bruce reads the first page in the book. When he isdone Evan says to Brad, “Now, you read this page.”Brad reads aloud. Bruce says to Evan, “Now youread.” Bruce points to the page and Evan takes histurn. The event continues without incident and witheach reading in the order established during the firstfew minutes of the event.

Two reasons may explain the problem-free waythis group defined the boundaries for the event.First, these three boys were good friends, and, assuch, they had a history of positive social interac-tions and a mutual desire to be together and to keepthe event proceeding (Hartup, 1996). Second, theywere in the same reading group, so they successfullycould perform the reading task that was the focus ofthe event. Therefore, liking one another and havingthe reading competence to perform the task resultedin a successful experience for all three. As illustratedin the next excerpt, not all boundaries are establishedwithout conflict.

Excerpt: Language arts board gameParticipants: Candace (HS–HR) Lilly (LS–LR)

Caroline (HS–AR) Lisa *

(*Lisa spent her mornings with a special educa-tion resource teacher and usually did not participatewith the children during the morning literacy in-struction. Thus, we did not gather data related to herpeer status and reading competence. However, she



did on occasion participate in the collaborative liter-acy events that occurred in the afternoon.)

Four girls, Candace, Caroline, Lilly, and Lisa,are playing a board game. They must read the wordon the game card and identify its opposite. Theteacher walks up to the girls and gives them thegame materials.

Candace turns to the teacher and asks: Can I go first?

Caroline immediately responds: No, ’cause I got the cards.

The teacher does not respond to Candace’s question butcontinues to provide the class with further in-structions about how to play the game.

Caroline resumes the conversation after the teacher com-pletes her instructions: We have to vote to seewho goes first.

Candace: I want to go first.

Caroline: Let’s let Lisa go first.

Lisa: Because I’m 8. I’m 8 years old. (Lisa is the oldestin the group.)

Lilly: Raise your hand if you want to vote for her? (Lillylifts Candace’s arm. Lilly also raises her own arm.)

Candace points to Lisa: You voted for me a while ago.(There is no response from Lisa.)

Caroline: No, she didn’t. She voted for me.

Lilly, with her head propped on her hands: How about this,Lisa...?

Candace interrupts: Noooo!

Lisa, holding up eight fingers: I’m 8; I’m 8 years old.

Lilly: Who wants Candace? Who wants Candace to go?

Caroline: We already done that!

Lilly, looking at Lisa: Raise your hand!

Caroline: No, you can’t tell her....

Candace to Lisa: You voted for me.

Caroline: Candace, you can’t—you told her.

The teacher walks up and Caroline tells her they can’t decidewho will go first.

Teacher points to Candace and says in a matter-of-fact tone:You go first.

Once the teacher makes the decision for thegroup, the game proceeds without further discussionabout the order. However, later when they changegame pieces for a second game, there is a brief dis-cussion about who should go first. Caroline turns toCandace and asks, “Can we switch around this way,go her (pointing to Lisa), her (Candace), her(Caroline), her (Lilly)?” Candace shakes her head noand says, “We go me, Lilly, you (Caroline), and you(Lisa).” The game begins without further discussionabout who should go first.

During this interchange Caroline’s deference toCandace was evidenced when she asked Candace ifthey could change the order. Caroline did not argue

or challenge Candace’s authority to make the deci-sion, a response technique typically used by a childto show deference to another (Ramsey, 1991).Possibly, the teacher’s earlier designation of Candaceas the first to take a turn established her position asleader of the group. However, another explanation isplausible. Caroline and Candace are best friends, andof the two, Candace has the higher peer status.Candace is also the best reader in the group. Duringthe event, when Caroline needed assistance, sheturned to Candace. It is also noteworthy that noneof the other children challenged Candace’s decisionto go first during the second half of the game.Perhaps this is a consequence of her peer status andher reading competence. The next excerpt illustratesagain the subtle influences of status and readingcompetence during an event and the consequencesthey have for establishing the boundaries for how anevent proceeds.

Excerpt: Monkey sentence frameParticipants: Brad (HS–AR) Evan (HS–AR)

Lewis (HS–AR) Todd (LS–LR)

Four boys are together. Each boy has a largesheet of paper, and each is to complete a sentenceframe the teacher has drawn on the board. The sen-tence frame is:

One

One

One in a .

Although each boy has a sheet of paper and theteacher has stated that she will place them in pairs,the four boys proceed with the event as though theymust use the same words on their individual sen-tence frames. The discussion that follows occurs dur-ing the first few minutes of the event and refers tothe topic they will use to create their sentence frame.

Brad: One monkey (suggesting this as the topic they will cre-ate their sentence frame around).

Brad: We don’t know how to spell monkey yet. (Brad leavesthe table to find out how to spell monkey.)

Lewis to Evan while Brad is gone: No, alligators! (meaninglet’s use alligator instead of monkey).

Evan: Monkey!

Lewis: Alligator!

Evan (continues to write as he responds to Lewis): I’m doin’monkey.

Lewis: You just want to do what Brad wants to do ’causeyou’re his best friend. You just want to do what Brad wantsto do.

Evan looks at Lewis and says: No.

Todd continues to write as Evan and Lewis talk.

Brad returns and tells the group how to spell monkey. Fromthis point on, Brad’s words are the ones that are written onthe paper of the other three children.

During the event, there are no disagreementsor discussions about which words are written in theblanks of the sentence frame. Brad supplies thewords, and the other children write them on theirpapers. This fact is noteworthy because two of theother three children have reading abilities compara-ble to Brad, yet they do not argue with him, nor dothey challenge his assumed role as leader. One expla-nation for this may be found in Brad’s status amonghis peers. Brad had one of the highest peer status rat-ings among his peers, a status he had earned becauseof his social competence and his knowledge of thesocial skills needed to navigate through interactionswith his classmates. This high peer status resulted inBrad’s influence when he was with his peers. Evanand Lewis both liked Brad. As mentioned by Lewis,Evan and Brad were best friends, and when theywere together it was not uncommon for Evan to de-fer to Brad, although Brad was the only child whoenjoyed this deference from Evan. Also of note isthat Lewis never mentioned to Brad that he wantedto create the sentence frame around alligator; insteadwhen Brad returned to the table, he followed Brad’slead. He directed his questions to Brad about whatthey were to do. He waited for Brad to draw his pic-ture so that he could model his drawing after Brad’s,and when Lewis completed his drawing he said toEvan with pride, “He’s (Brad) makin’ a pack of ba-nanas like mine.”

The three previous excerpts illustrate how deci-sions made at the beginning of an event often set theboundaries for how the event will proceed. Also sig-nificant is that how these decisions are made andwho makes them are often determined by factors(i.e., peer status and literacy competence) not con-sciously apparent to teachers who design these eventsor to the casual observer.

Contrasting experiences: Full strides and missteps

Collaborative literacy events are also venueswhere the children express their literate selves andtheir peers respond to these expressions. Children

suggest ideas, seek or provide assistance, and evaluateone another’s work. For some children, these eventsare opportunities to take full strides toward develop-ing their literate selves. For others, they are occasionsto reveal their personal challenges and missteps withliteracy. For all participants, they have the potentialto be personally meaningful. The following examplesillustrate how, as the events proceed, they can havevery personal consequences for the participants.

A return to the language arts board game eventwith Caroline, Candace, Lisa, and Lilly illustrateshow very personal these events can be. During theevent, the children play two games. The purpose ofthe first game is to identify the opposite of the wordon the card. Lilly has four turns, and each time heranswer is incorrect. How personal this failure is forLilly is evident in her behavior. After she is wrong forthe third time, Lilly sits down and puts her chin onher hands. The teacher walks by and asks, “How’s itgoing?” Lilly responds, “Not good.” After her fourthincorrect response, Lilly is visibly upset. She sits backin her chair, appears as though she will cry, and low-ers her head.

Contrast this with Candace’s experience.During the first half of the event, Candace has fiveturns, and each time she is correct. After winningboth games, Candace jumps up and down, claps herhands, and says, “I’m good at this!”

Indeed Candace is good at this. She is one ofthe best readers in the class, and because of her skillshe often reads unknown words for others. Duringthis event, Candace is able to read each of her cards,and she assists others 16 times during this 40-minuteactivity. The teacher did not designate Candace asthe one to provide assistance for the others. The oth-ers in the group did not need the teacher to declareCandace as the one with the most knowledge. Muchof their work as first-grade readers was public, andwhen they participated in collaborative events thatwork was also public. This public work makes one’scompetence or deficiencies visible.

Candace has influence when she is with peersnot only because she is a competent reader, but alsobecause she is well liked. The other children enjoyedbeing with Candace. Another event illustrates the in-fluence this status provides her. Again, four girls,Candace, Lilly, Melissa, and Laura, are grouped toplay a game. The game requires that one child placeher hand in the bag and describe the object to theothers. Once the item is identified, each writes on asheet of paper the name of the object and a brief de-scription of that object. Candace is the first one toget the bag. The teacher did not appoint Candace asthe leader, yet no one complains as Candace initiates



the activity. Nor do they complain when she guidesthem through the event. She reminds them of therules, “You’re not allowed to take it out,” and in-forms them when the game can proceed, “Hold on.You can’t say—you can’t say anymore. Y’all hold on.”

As in the other event, Candace’s competence as areader gives her influence. In this event, it is Candace’ssentence they all write down, and it is Candace whospells unknown words for the other children. She is thebest reader in the group, and she has the highest peerstatus of the four; both characteristics place her in anenviable position and essentially guarantee that the ex-perience will be a positive one for her.

What is noteworthy is the teacher rarely desig-nates the leader in many of these groups. Rather, asdemonstrated in the preceding events, the role ofleader is usually assumed by the individual and tacitlyagreed to by the other participants. The experience ofchildren like Candace and Brad can be contrasted withchildren like Lance. Lance was one of the most compe-tent readers in the class, yet he had a relative low peer-status rating. When Lance worked with his peers, heoften argued with them and expressed concerns aboutnot being included. The following illustrates Lance’stypical response when he worked with his peers.

The teacher groups Brad, Evan, Lance, andLilly together. Their task is to create a word webaround a word about space or planets. Shortly afterthe event begins, Lance expresses concerns about notbeing included. “Y’all aren’t lettin’ me draw nothin’!”Three more times during the event he expresses hisconcerns. “Y’all aren’t lettin’ me in,” “Y’all are takin’all my ideas away,” and “Y’all aren’t lettin’ me draw!”

Rarely are Lance’s peers overtly negative; rather,they are more likely to ignore his requests to partici-pate and his protests about being left out, a responsetypical of children this age toward less liked peers(Ramsey, 1991). Evan does respond once to Lance.After Lilly had written the word satellite, Lance saysto her, “You got to erase it (the word satellite). I gotthat first.” Evan responds, “I like hers!” Lance, “No!”Evan, “Hers looks better!” Lance responds, “Hersdoesn’t have an i.”

Lance indicated by his own proclamations thatthese events were personal for him. Four times hecomplained to his classmates that they were not al-lowing him to participate. Fueling his persistencewas Lance’s competence as a reader. He had ideasand he knew what he wanted to do. Consequently,he asserted himself during these events, and often hispeers ignored his requests and protests, or they overt-ly rejected his suggestions.

The experience of Todd, another low-statuschild, demonstrates how personal these events are

when low status is combined with low reading com-petence. Todd was one of the weakest readers in theclass. Todd, like Lance, was identified as a child whowas rejected by his peers. Todd was more physicalwith his peers. He was impulsive and often inter-rupted the children as they worked at their desks orduring center time. Todd relied on his peers’ assis-tance when he participated in collaborative literacyevents. He rarely offered ideas, yet, unlike less as-sertive children in the class, Todd asked his peers forhelp. A return to the monkey sentence frame activitydescribed previously in this article illustrates Todd’stypical experience when he worked with his peersduring collaborative literacy events.

The group has worked for several minuteswhen Todd makes his first request for help.

Todd: Help me, somebody.

Lewis: Someone help Todd.

(No help is given)

Todd: Man, guys, just slow down so I can catch up.

(Again no help is offered. The other children are busy writ-ing on their own papers.)

Todd: I need somebody to help me! Somebody help me!Somebody help me!

(Again there is no response. A few minutes later, Todd leavesthe room and is gone for several minutes. When he returns,Todd continues his pleas for help.): Can you draw the sen-tence for me? (No response.) Can you draw the sentence? ...

Todd: Will somebody help me—draw the pictures?

Brad to Todd: Todd, do you want the whole face? (Bradthinks Todd wants help with drawing the monkey to illus-trate their sentence frame.)

Todd: No. (He explains he needs help with the writing partof the activity.)

Brad: I can’t write it. (meaning each child is suppose to writefor himself)

Todd: Just write it for me now!

Brad responding calmly but directly: I can’t write it.

Todd, more emphatically: NOW!

Brad, again responding in a calm but direct manner: Listen,Todd, I can’t write it, but I can tell you.

Todd: Just write it!

Brad, responding again in a calm and direct manner: I’msorry.

Todd, less emphatically: Do I have part of it right?

Brad: Uhh, yes, you do.

Todd: Now what else?

Brad: Put monkey.

Todd: Monkey, right here? That’s monkey? (pointing to theword monkey on Brad’s paper)

Brad: Put e, right! That’s how you spell monkey! (He soundsapproving.)

Todd: Monkey, and what else?

Lewis trying to get Brad’s attention by saying: How do youmake the body? Let’s get on to the body! (There’s urgency inhis voice, but no response from Brad.)

Todd: Tell me what this one is.

Brad: Monkey. That one’s monkey.

Todd: I mean this one.

Brad: Fat—fat.

Lewis, annoyed: All right, all right already!

Todd, still talking to Brad: This one.

Lewis to Brad, emphatically and impatiently: Get on thebody please!

Brad, patiently continuing to assist Todd: Fat.

Todd’s repeated pleas suggest that this eventwas very personal. During this 40-minute event,Todd asked for assistance 14 times. The boundariesestablished early in an event as well as the pace atwhich the event proceeds have very personal conse-quences for children like Todd. Because Todd workswith more capable readers, and because the task theyperform is beyond his ability level, Todd’s fate issealed before the event begins. Todd’s peer statusmay have contributed to the children initially ignor-ing his requests. Todd’s interactions with his peerswere often direct and assertive. This directness andassertiveness may have contributed to his persistenceand forceful pleas for help.

This excerpt also demonstrates why Brad ishighly regarded by his peers. As is typical of high-sta-tus children, Brad was not argumentative. He waspatient with his peers and provided assistance whenasked. This event also illustrates another characteris-tic of high-status children; that is, their communica-tive skills. When Todd asked Brad to draw for him,instead of refusing, he offered an alternative to Todd,“Listen Todd, I can’t write it, but I can tell you.”Another typical behavior of high-status children anddemonstrated by Brad is their ability to take the per-spective of others. A few minutes after the inter-change, the following occurred:

Evan: I told you he’s good. (complementing Brad’s drawingability)

Lewis: I know he’s good.

Todd: I’m good too, man.

Brad: I know you are, Todd.

This response was not atypical for Brad. Hewas observed on several occasions empathizing withhis classmates. Another example occurred three daysafter this event when the teacher had three of thesesame four boys together for another sentence framecompletion activity. Lance is the fourth child in thegroup.

Todd: Guys, wait for me!...

Lance: We don’t have to wait up! Look, A-P-L-U-S (Hespells apples for Todd.)

Todd, a few seconds later: Wait for me, guys. I’m catchin’up. Just wait, guys!

Evan: Well, then hurry up...

Brad: Todd, I’m behind too.

Lance: I ain’t.

Brad: I am.

Lance: I’m in front.

Todd again struggles to keep up with the paceset by his more capable peers. Brad empathizes withTodd by saying, “Todd, I’m behind, too.”

As demonstrated in the preceding excerpts, theboundaries set by others may have very personalconsequences and may result in different childrenhaving different experiences in these groups. Theseconsequences may be more evident when there is aproduct produced. This possibility is discussed next.

Imprinting: Prints left in text When the children in Ms. Kendall’s classroom

participated in a collaborative literacy event, they of-ten created a product. The products they producedwere varied; for example, a word web, a recipe, or acompleted sentence frame. The imprints or marks thechildren leave on these products are illustrated by theideas captured in print and represent whose voice washeard, whose voice was ignored, and whose voice wasabsent. Therefore the products provide tangible evi-dence for speculating about the effects peer status andreading competence have on these events.

Excerpt: Shamrock toastParticipants: Evan (HS–AR) Lance (LS–HR)

Michelle (LS–LR) Sammy (NS–LR) Laura (NS–AR)



The teacher groups five children to create arecipe for shamrock toast. Evan immediately assumesthe role of leader in the group. Eight words are writ-ten during the course of the event. (Figure 3 is theproduct created by the five children.) Table 2 liststhe ideas generated during this event, who proposedthe idea, the person the idea is directed to, the re-sponse to the proposed idea, and the ultimate conse-quence. Evan has a part in the generation of eachidea. He writes four of the words (bread, eggs, milk,and sugar). He suggests the word spatula to Sammy,and he directs Michelle and Lance when they writetheir words. The final product represents Evan’s workmore than the work of the other four children.

Evan, like Brad, was one of the highest statuschildren in the class. He had a good sense of humorand frequently teased his classmates. Girls wrote himlove notes, and boys wanted to be with him. He rarelyconfronted children, although he did exhibit moreconfrontational responses to Michelle and Lance, bothchildren with lower peer status. Except when Evanwas with Brad, he assumed the role of leader in thecollaborative groups in which he participated.

The second excerpt provides another exampleof the imprint left on the final product. Table 3 liststhe ideas that were generated during an apple sen-tence frame activity that included Evan, Brad, Lance,and Todd. Twenty ideas were generated during theevent, and 14 of those were suggested by Lance.Although the ideas Lance offered were as appropriateand correct as those offered by Brad, the group onlyused 2 of his 14 ideas (“two big red apples in a bas-ket!” and “OK, now we’ve got to write the pic-ture...”). As indicated earlier, Lance was one of thebest readers in the class, and he had one of the lowestpeer-status ratings in the class. Brad, as the assumedleader of the group, was the one who either suggest-ed or sanctioned each idea that was written on thechart. What is interesting is that each child had hisown sheet of paper, yet they all wrote the ideas Bradeither suggested or sanctioned. The final productproduced during this event is evidence of the im-print or lack of imprint left by each child on theevent. More important, it demonstrates in very tan-gible ways whose expressions of literacy were valuedby the group, whose were rejected, and whose werenever heard. The ultimate impact of the confluenceof peer status and reading competence is suggestedin the next section.

Lasting impressions: An oeuvreAn oeuvre is a substantial body of work that rep-

resents the expressions of an individual. It is the exter-nalization of an individual’s mental efforts and as suchrepresents to others the individual’s thoughts and views(Bruner, 1996). We assert that when these representa-tions are text, they represent that person’s literate self.When the texts are created during a collaborative liter-acy event, ideally they represent the collective mentalefforts of all who are present. Our examination of theseevents, however, suggests that the products createdduring these events may not equally represent all whoare involved. Therefore, events designed with the peda-gogical intent of collaboration may in reality be moreindividual or competitive.

Contrast the experiences of Candace, Brad,and Evan with those of Todd, Lilly, and Lance.When Candace, Brad, and Evan worked with theirpeers during intended collaborative literacy events,they were the leaders in these events. Their answerswere assumed to be correct, and their ideas were val-ued and copied and often tacitly chosen to representthe group. In contrast, when Todd, Lilly, and Lanceworked with their peers, their responses were fre-quently ignored, rejected, or absent. The conse-quence for these children was that their expressionsof literacy were minimally represented or absentfrom the final product. If, as Bruner (1996) claimed,

FIGURE 3RECIPE FOR SHAMROCK TOAST

two principal components of the self are the abilityto initiate and participate in an activity and the eval-uation of that participation as either a success or afailure, then what message is implied to children likeTodd, Lilly, and Lance if the final product displayedhas minimal or no evidence of their efforts?

During the course of a school year, each childcreates a substantial body of work that represents thatchild’s expressions of literacy. If that work is createdin concert with others, then peer- and academic-sta-tus characteristics converge to influence the interac-tions between and among the participants in thegroup. Contributing to the significance of this influ-ence is that these characteristics of status are stableacross time and contexts, thereby increasing the likeli-hood that the responses a child receives from peers inone situation are similar to those received in others(Cohen, 1997; Feeney & Noller, 1996). It is this con-sistency that creates the patterns in responses. It is thetone of the responses that determines the impressionthat remains with the recipient, and it is this impres-sion that has the potential for long-lasting effects onthe development of the individual’s literate self.

DiscussionMost children seem eager to participate with

their peers during peer-only literacy events. Theirmotivation is high when they are called together.Some children enter these events knowing what todo, and they are prepared to proceed. They are nottrying to usurp the ideas of their peers; rather, theyare likely focused on carrying through on the insightsthey have and the contribution they might make.

However, for some children, knowing what todo is not sufficient. Children’s successful participa-tion during these events often is determined by theirstatus in a group, which may not immediately be ev-ident. Children like Lance, who can perform the lit-eracy behaviors required in an event but are rejectedby their peers, often have their ideas discounted orrejected because they lack the social skills necessaryto navigate positively within these social events.Therefore, collaborative literacy events are complex,because children are expected to coordinate their be-havior with one another in order to proceed throughthe event. The degree of success that children have in


Idea By To Response Consequence

Evan suggests they Evan Group Each child writes None observedshould all write their his or her namenames and numbers. and number.

Evan writes the Evanword bread.

Lance writes the Lance Evan takes the paper word toaster. from Lance and

erases the word.

“R—don’t you Evan Lance Lance, “I know Evan, “You didknow how—give how to make it messy.”it to me.” an R!”

“What do you Evan Sammy Sammy, “Ina.” Evan, “Knife?” Evan giveswant to do?” the paper to Sammy.

He writes knife.

Evan writes Evanthe word eggs.

Evan gives the Evan Michelle Evan, “Man, are Michelle, “Yes!”paper to Michelle. you going to

write butter?”

Evan writes Evan NR Lance, Michelle, and Sarahthe word milk. begin to create a story

about castles and space.

“You want to Evan Sammy Sammy, “Yes.” Evan moves next to Sammydo spatula?” and spells spatula for him

Evan asks teacher, Evan Teacher Teacher, “Sugar.” “Yes, sugar, we want sugar.”“Ms. K., what’s that He writes sugar on the paper. s-u-g-a-r?”

TABLE 2MAP OF IDEAS GENERATED DURING SHAMROCK TOAST EVENT


Idea By To Response Consequence

“We can do like Lance Group Brad, “You can’t Lance leaves; Brad rollsbig and little. do that. You have to do his eyes and sighs.You can do...” the same thing.”

“A big apple.” Lance Group Brad, “Two apples.” Evan, “Yea! Two apples!”

“Two red apples.” Lance Group Brad, “Two apples, Lance, “How ’boutwe do two apples.” two red apples?”

“How ’bout two Lance Group Brad, “Two Lance begins tored apples?” apples. spell apples.

How do you spell apples?”

“Two red apples Lance Group Brad, “Two apples.” They begin to write.in a bucket!”

“Two red apples, Lance Group Brad, “No, two red Lance, “I know. Iin a bucket.” apples are all we wrote two red apples.”

have in this one?”

“How ‘bout two Lance Group Evan, “Yea! Two None observed.big red apples?” big red apples, now.”

“Two red apples Brad Group NR None observed.are growin’.”

“Two red apples.” Brad Group Evan, “In a basket!” Brad, repeats, “Two red apples.”

“Two red apples Lance Group Lance laughs. None observed.in a stable.” NR others.

“Two red apples; Lance Group Evan, “Two big red apples. Lance, “TWO BIG,two big red; two We’re only suppose to RED, APPLES!”big red apples.” be doin’ three (lines).” Brad counts lines.

“Two yellow apples.” Evan Group Lance loudly, “How All three begin to talk’bout two red big, two big about Todd’s writing.red apples?”

“Two big red apples? Lance Group Evan, “Yea!” Evan and Lance resume writing.In a basket?”

“Two big red apples Evan Brad Brad, “OK, OK, OK!” He They all begin to write “in a basket.”in a basket!” looks at his paper and then puts

hands in the air as though he doesn’t want to argue.

“In the basket. Lance Evan looks Lance, “Like None observed.How ’bout in a at Lance and basketball!”basket?” repeats “in a

basket.”

“Ok, now we’ve got Lance Group NR They all are drawing.to write the picture. Lance and Evan ask BradIt’s time to write it.” to draw a basket for them.

“We need to add some Brad Group Lance, “No, we Brad gets up to talk withwhite. I’m gonna ask don’t!” Brad, “Lance, teacher to verify whatMs. K....” there was only two apples!” they should do.

Brad returns and Brad Group Lance, “No, how ’bout None observed.tells group they need paint? How ’bout rope?”to add an action word. He suggests growing.

Lance, “No, how ’bout Lance Group Brad, “In a basket growing?” Brad and Evan discus how to spellpaint? How ’bout rope?” growing. Lance says he’s done.

“We don’t have to put Lance Group Brad, “Yes, you do.” Lance, “Well, I ain’t.”more details.” Evan, “I do.”

Todd, “I do.”

TABLE 3MAP OF IDEA FLOW DURING APPLE SENTENCE FRAME EVENT

coordinating their behavior may be determined bytheir status in the group.

Further, because collaborative literacy eventsare inherently social events, their procession is medi-ated by the participants’ social interchanges. Rubin(1980) asserted that there are two ingredients neces-sary for a successful social interchange, mutual inter-est and coordination of plans. When Evan, Bruce,and Brad in our investigation formed a group topartner read, they had a mutual interest to be to-gether and to read the assigned pages in the text.They were able to coordinate their plans becauseeach had a defined task and each possessed the skillsneeded to perform the task. When Lilly, Candace,Caroline, and Lisa were grouped to play the lan-guage arts board game, they all had a mutual interestto play the game. However, as the game progressedthe task became too difficult for Lilly, and her inter-ests diminished and her initial pleasure in the eventwas overshadowed by her inability to perform thetask. When Lewis, Todd, Lance, and Brad collabo-rated to complete the monkey sentence frame, thepace of performance set by Todd’s more competentpeers made it impossible for him to coordinate hisefforts with theirs. Although Todd’s classmates main-tained an interest in completing the sentence frame,Todd’s interest was to “keep up.”

The nature and quality of the relationships be-tween the participants in a group also contribute tothe degree to which the interactions among the par-ticipants are successful. Lance did not receive overtacceptance by his peers and, although he could per-form the tasks and was persistent in his attempts tohave his ideas accepted, his peers rarely incorporatedhis ideas. Brad, Candace, and Evan, on the otherhand, were often tacitly chosen as leaders, and theirideas frequently were captured in the final products.

Collaborative literacy events are venues wherechildren try out and express their competence as read-ers and writers. Turner (1995) provided insights onhow the characteristics of the academic tasks childrenare asked to perform influence their behavior. Tasksthat enhance motivation (a) allow children to pursuepersonal interests, (b) provide appropriate challenge,(c) allow children to make decisions about how theyrespond, and (d) provide for social interaction.Children like Brad and Candace are competent readersand writers, and they enjoy performing literacy tasks.The tasks they were asked to perform were at an ap-propriate level of challenge, and they provided oppor-tunities for them to make decisions about how theywould respond. For children like Todd and Lilly, theirinitial interest in the task was thwarted because theirliteracy skills were taxed. Therefore, instead of focusing

on the literacy event, their interactions during theseevents were often focused on keeping up with peerswho were more competent readers and writers.

It is important to consider issues related to theindividual psychology of the children to understandhow perceptions children have of themselves andothers as social beings and literate beings are formedand how these perceptions create expectations thatinfluence the ways these children respond to one an-other during social interactions. The children’s socialsense of self is based on a history of interactions withothers (Bretherton, 1987). Thus children enter theclassroom with a sense of who they are and howcompetent they are socially and academically.Therefore, when a teacher makes the assignment anddivides the children into groups, children bring thesehistories into these groups. If during the course of aschool year children have multiple opportunities tocollaborate with others to perform a literacy task, itis essential to consider what messages these opportu-nities are reinforcing about the participants’ socialworth and their worth as literate individuals. Beingaware that these social events have very individualand personal consequences for the children is essen-tial for gaining a complete appraisal of the effective-ness of these events in enhancing the children’sliteracy development.

Finally, the work between and among the first-grade students in this classroom, we believe, rein-forces Smagorinsky and O’Donnell-Allen’s (2000)argument for an expanded conception of the socialcontext as defined by a sociocultural perspective toinclude the personal histories of the students who aregrouped to perform instructional activities. Thesepersonal histories, we assert, are part of the con-structs identified within the individual psychology ofthe children and are powerful and may, asSmagorinsky and O’Donnell-Allen contended, over-ride the pedagogical intent of the activity.

ImplicationsThe social nature of literacy learning has fo-

cused teachers’ attention on the enhanced motiva-tion to children when they participate with peersduring collaborative literacy events. To maximize thebenefits to all participants in collaborative literacyevents and to expand understanding of the nature ofthese events, this research suggests several implica-tions for classroom practice and for future research.



Classroom implicationsWhen teachers design instructional contexts

that allow children to interact with peers, they ulti-mately are designing arenas in which children ex-press not only who they are academically but alsowho they are socially. Realizing the inherently socialnature of these events and the demands they placeon children’s social skills is essential. Some childrenwill be more adept at initiating successful interac-tions with others, resolving conflict, and taking theperspective of another. Teachers can play a criticalrole in assisting children to develop more effectivesocial skills. For example, teachers who guide chil-dren through conflict resolution provide opportuni-ties for the children to develop heightened awarenessof the perspective of others as well as opportunitiesto practice more effective resolution strategies(Ramsey, 1991).

For an accurate evaluation of the success orfailure of a collaborative literacy event, teachersshould consider not only the product that is pro-duced but also the process by which the product iscreated. Sociocultural theory places the unit ofanalysis on the interactions that occur between andamong individuals during events, so viewing theproduct without consideration of the process ignoresa core concept in a sociocultural perspective of learn-ing. Habermas (1984) provided a useful lensthrough which to view the multitude of actions ex-hibited by individuals as they interact with theworld. Therefore, as teachers observe children work-ing together, they should consider the actions be-tween children related to the materials used and theideas proposed by the children, the actions directedto others with the goal of social interaction, and theactions related to how the children should behaveand perform the task. Viewing the actions from thisexpanded lens should enhance teachers’ understand-ing of the complexity of these events.

Problems during collaborative literacy eventsoften result when the children are challenged to co-ordinate their actions with peers who are more ableto perform the task. Teachers can increase the use ofopen-ended literacy tasks to minimize the children’sneed to coordinate their plans with other children.Open-ended tasks, such as having children choosethe books they read or their written response to astimulus, allow multiple responses and enable chil-dren to respond at their skill levels rather than at-tempt to keep up with or have to wait for otherswho perform at different skill levels. To allow chil-dren to benefit from the knowledge of their peers,these events can be organized in ways that allow chil-

dren to share the materials needed and to talk withone another as they work. Such activities enable chil-dren to work at a level compatible with their skilllevel as well as to benefit from the expertise of moreknowledgeable peers.

When children join a group, their peer- andacademic-status characteristics influence how theybehave as well as how others behave toward them.Decades of research reveal distinct patterns amongchildren who are positioned at different levels ofpeer-and academic-status hierarchies. Teachers easilycan identify the peer- and academic-status hierar-chies that exist in their classrooms. The sorting pro-cedure used in this investigation to identify thepeer-status characteristics is simple to administer andto interpret. (See Rubin et al., 1998, for an overviewof the strategies for gathering sociometric data.)Academic status can be determined easily by rank or-dering the children by reading or writing compe-tence. When teachers are aware of where thechildren in their classrooms are positioned along theclassroom hierarchies, they are alerted to potentialproblems that may result for some of the childrenand can identify ways to maximize equity within thegroups. Cohen (1994) and Cohen and Lotan (1997)described treatments they found effective in modify-ing status effects and thereby maximize equity withingroups. One is to assign competence to low-statusstudents and another is to design collaborative expe-riences that require multiple abilities. Both necessi-tate the teacher discussing explicitly with the classthe skills the students possess and the need for allthese skill sets for successful completion of the expe-rience. Their work has determined that although it isdifficult to ameliorate status inequities, treatmentssuch as these can minimize their effects. When sucheffects are minimized, teachers are more likely to re-alize the intent of collaborative literacy events—chil-dren working together toward a common outcome.

Finally, teachers should reconsider the useful-ness of young children spending large blocks of timeworking with their classmates in peer-only literacyevents. Decades of research in reading (e.g.,Cipielewski & Stanovich, 1992) have supported theimportance of engaged time to reading achievement.If children’s attempts to interact with their peers arebeing thwarted, as was the case for Lance, then howmuch time are the children actually engaged in pro-ductive reading and writing experiences? If childrenare asked to complete tasks that are beyond theirability level, as was the case for Lilly and Todd, thenhow much time are the children actually engaged inproductive reading and writing experiences?Shortening the amount of time children spend in

such groups, providing close supervision of their ver-bal and nonverbal behavior while in these groups,and monitoring the difficulty level of the tasks foreach student in the group may substantially increasethe time children actually spend reading and writing.

Research implicationsFuture research that examines the social di-

mension of literacy development should consider is-sues related to the individual psychology of thechildren. Specifically, more attention should beplaced on investigating how students’ status amongtheir peers, related to social factors, contributes tounderstanding the social dimension of literacy learn-ing. Investigating the effects these public, socialevents have on the individuals is critical for a com-plete understanding of these events. As suggested byour investigation, the individuals within these socialgroups experience these interactions with their peersin different ways. The consequence is that for someof the children (like Brad and Candace) these inter-actions are a source of support while for others (likeLance, Lilly, and Todd) they are a source of stress(Ladd et al., 1999).

Future research also should include an exami-nation of the nature and quality of children’s rela-tionships with others and how children’srelationships with peers influence what is learned.There is research that suggests that there are cogni-tive benefits for children when they can perform lit-eracy tasks with a friend (e.g., Hartup, 1996;Pellegrini & Galda, 1998).

LimitationsThe insights gained from this investigation

should be considered in light of its limitations. First,the study focused only on literacy events intended tobe collaborative. These events are just one subset ofthe many ways teachers group or pair children towork together. Other research (e.g., Fisher &Hiebert, 1990; Turner, 1995) suggested that howchildren behave in one instructional context is differ-ent from how they respond in other contexts.Second, the children’s participation in the peer nom-ination activities may have influenced children’s per-ceptions of their peers and even implicitlysanctioned negative perceptions. However, previousresearch with young children has found that the peernomination process does not appear to affect thesubsequent behavior of children toward their peers(Rubin et al., 1998). Third, a related limitation is

that Mona’s knowledge of the children’s standingamong their classmates may have influenced oursubsequent perceptions of the children, though at-tempts were made to triangulate the data and tosearch for negative cases to minimize such influence.Fourth, as others asserted (Au, 1999; Rogoff, 1990),assumptions about behavior, intention, or motiva-tion drawn from one population should not be gen-eralized to another population. Fifth, the datareported herein were gathered on the interactions be-tween and among 13 children in one first-gradeclassroom. A qualitative design prevents generaliza-tions beyond this classroom. However, efforts weremade to provide thick descriptions of the events andthe contexts so that others can determine the rele-vance of the insights of this study to related contexts.

ConclusionThrough the experiences of everyday life, chil-

dren learn about the symbols and tools valued bytheir culture (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986). Children grad-ually gain mastery and regulation of these throughtheir interactions with others. These interactions in-fluence the conceptions the children develop aboutthemselves as social and literate people, and they be-come the lens through which their future experi-ences are filtered.

The intent of this investigation is not to sug-gest that children should work only in literacy activi-ties directly supervised by the teacher. There is strongpractical and research evidence that suggests childrenderive many benefits from collaborating with theirpeers. Rather the intent is to expand the lensthrough which these events are viewed so that theircomplexity is appreciated and the consequences theyhave on the individuals are better understood.

R E F E R E N C E SADAMS, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about

print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.AMES, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures and student moti-

vation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271.AU, K.H. (1999). Social constructivism and the school literacy learn-

ing of students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 30,297–319.

BALDWIN, J.M. (1897). Social and ethical interpretations in mentaldevelopment. New York: Macmillan.

BERGER, J., WAGNER, D.G., & ZELDITCH, M. (1985).Introduction: Expectation states theory: Review and assessment. In J.Berger & M. Zelditch (Eds.), Status, rewards, and influence (pp. 1–72).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

BORNSTEIN, M.H. (1989). Between caretakers and their young:Two modes of interaction and their consequences for cognitive growth. InM.H. Bornstein & J.S. Bruner (Eds.), Interaction in human development(pp. 197–214). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

BOWLBY, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New



York: Basic Books.BRETHERTON, I. (1987). New perspectives on attachment rela-

tions: Security, communication, and internal working models. In J.Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (pp. 1061–1100). NewYork: John Wiley & Sons.

BRUNER, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

CIPIELEWSKI, J., & STANOVICH, K.E. (1992). Predictinggrowth in reading ability from children’s exposure to print. Journal ofExperimental Child Psychology, 67, 279–291.

CLAY, M.M. (1993). An observation survey of early literacy achieve-ment. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

COHEN, E.G. (1984). Talking and working together: Status, inter-action, and learning. In P.L. Peterson, L.C. Wilkinson, & M. Hallinan(Eds.), The social context of instruction: Group organization and groupprocesses (pp. 171–187). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

COHEN, E.G. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the hetero-geneous classroom (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

COHEN, E.G. (1997). Understanding status problems: Sources andconsequences. In E.G. Cohen & R.A. Lotan (Eds.), Working for equity inheterogeneous classrooms: Sociological theory in practice (pp. 61–76). NewYork: Teachers College Press.

COHEN, E.G., & LOTAN, R.A. (1997). Raising expectations forcompetence: The effectiveness of status intervention. In E.G. Cohen &R.A. Lotan (Eds.), Working for equity in heterogeneous classrooms:Sociological theory in practice (pp. 77–91). New York: Teachers CollegePress.

COOLEY, C.H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. NewYork: Scribner.

COSTELLO, R.B. (Ed.). (1991). Random House Webster’s college dic-tionary . New York: Random House.

DIAZ, R.M., NEAL, C.J., & AMAYA-WILLIAMS, M. (1990). Thesocial origins of self-regulation. In L.C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education:Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp.127–154). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

DYSON, A.H. (1993). The social worlds of children learning in an ur-ban primary school. New York: Teachers College Press.

DYSON, A.H. (1995). Writing children: Reinventing the develop-ment of childhood literacy. Written Communication, 12, 4–46.

DYSON, A.H. (1999). Coach Bombay’s kids learn to write:Children’s appropriation of media material for school literacy. Researchin the Teaching of English, 33, 367–402.

ERWIN, P. (1993). Friendship and peer relations in children. NewYork: Wiley.

FEENEY, J., & NOLLER, P. (1996). Adult attachment. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

FISHER, C.W., & HIEBERT, E.H. (1990). Characteristics of tasksin two approaches to literacy instruction. The Elementary School Journal,91, 3–18.

FORMAN, E.A., & CAZDEN, C.B. (1994). Exploring Vygotskianperspectives in education: The cognitive value of peer interaction. InR.B. Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models andprocesses of reading (4th ed., pp. 155–178). Newark, DE: InternationalReading Association.

GARNICA, O. (1981). Social dominance and conversational inter-action: The omega child in the classroom. In J.L. Green & C. Wallat(Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings (Vol. 5, pp.229–252). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

GILLIES, R.M., & ASHMAN, A.F. (2000). The effects of coopera-tive learning on students with learning difficulties in the lower elemen-tary classroom. Journal of Special Education, 34, 19–28.

GRONLUND, N.E. (1959). Sociometry in the classroom. New York:Harper.

HABERMAS, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1.Reason and the rationalization of society (Thomas McCarthy, Trans.).Boston: Beacon Press.

HALLINAN, M.T. (1976). Friendship patterns in open and tradi-tional classrooms. Sociology of Education, 49, 254–265.

HARTUP, W.W. (1996). Cooperation, close relationships, and cog-nitive development. In W.M. Bukowski, A.F. Newcomb, & W.W.Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adoles-cence (pp. 213–237). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

HARTUP, W.W., DAIUTE, C., ZAJAC, R., & SCHOLL, W.(1995). Collaboration in creative writing by friends and non-friends .Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

HEAP, J.L. (1991). A situated perspective on what counts as read-

ing. In C.D. Baker & A. Luke (Eds.), Towards a critical sociology of readingpedagogy: Papers of the XII World Congress on reading (pp. 103–139).Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

HENDERSON, V.L., & DWECK, C.S. (1990). Motivation andachievement. In S.S. Feldman & G.R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: Thedeveloping adolescent (pp. 308–329). Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

JOHNS, J.L. (1994). Basic reading inventory (6th ed.). Dubuque, IA:Kendall/Hunt.

JOHNS, J.L., LENSKI, S.D., & ELISH-PIPER, L. (1999). Early lit-eracy assessments and teaching strategies. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

JOHNSON, D.W., JOHNSON, R., & MARUYAMA, G. (1983).Interdependence and inter-personal attraction among heterogeneous andhomogeneous individuals: A theoretical formulation and a meta-analysisof the research. Review of Educational Research, 53, 5–54.

JONES, I., & PELLEGRINI, A.D. (1996). The effects of social rela-tionships, writing media, and microgenetic development on first-gradestudents’ written narratives. American Educational Research Journal, 33,691–718.

JUNKER, B.H. (1960). Field work: An introduction to the social sci-ences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

KAGAN, S. (1992). Cooperative learning. San Juan Capistrano, CA:Resources for Teachers.

LADD, G.W., BIRCH, S.H., & BUHS, E.S. (1999). Children’s so-cial and scholastic lives in kindergarten: Related spheres and influences.Child Development, 70, 1373–1400.

LADD, G.W., & COLEMAN, C.C. (1993). Young children’s peerrelationships: Forms, features, and functions. In B. Spodek (Ed.),Handbook of research on the education of young children (pp. 57–76). NewYork: Macmillan.

LINCOLN, Y.S., & GUBA, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

MATTHEWS, M.W. (1995, March). Who taught you how to dothat? Insights into literacy learning in a student-centered, nongraded class-room. In K. Camperell, B.L. Hayes, & R. Telfer (Eds.), Linking literacy:Past, present, and future. 15th Annual Yearbook of the American ReadingForum (pp. 63–75). Logan, UT: Utah State University.

MATTHEWS, M.W., & KESNER, J.E. (2000). The silencing ofSammy: One struggling reader learning with his peers. The ReadingTeacher, 53, 382–390.

PEARSON, P.D., & STEPHENS, D. (1994). Learning about litera-cy: A 30-year journey. In R.B. Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell, & H. Singer(Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 22–42).Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

PELLEGRINI, A.D., & GALDA, L. (1998). The development ofschool-based literacy: A social ecological perspective. London: Routledge.

PUTALLAZ, M., & GOTTMAN, J.M. (1981). An interactionalmodel of children’s entry into peer groups. Child Development, 52,986–994.

QUAY, L., & JARRETT, O. (1984). Predictors of social acceptancein preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 20, 793–796.

RAMSEY, P.G. (1991). Making friends in school: Promoting peer rela-tionships in early childhood. New York: Teachers College Press.

ROGOFF, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive develop-ment in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.

RUBIN, K.H., BUKOWSKI, W., & PARKER, J.G. (1998). Peerinteractions, relationships, and groups, In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbookof child psychology (5th ed., pp. 619–700). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

RUBIN, Z. (1980). Children’s friendships. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

RUDDELL, R.B., & UNRAU, N.J. (1994). Reading as a meaning-construction process: The reader, the text, and the teacher. In R.B.Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and process-es of reading (4th ed., pp. 996–1056). Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation.

SHARAN, S., & SHAULOV, A. (1990). Cooperative learning, mo-tivation to learn, and achievement. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learn-ing: Theory and research (pp. 173–202). Westport, CT: Praeger.

SLAVIN, R.E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of EducationalResearch, 50, 315-342.

SMAGORINSKY, P., & O’DONNELL-ALLEN, C. (2000).Idiocultural diversity in small groups: The role of the relational frameworkin collaborative learning. In C.D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.),Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning throughcollaborative inquiry (pp. 165–190). Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversity Press.

SMITH, F. (1988). Joining the literacy club: Further essays into educa-tion. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

STRAUSS, A., & CORBIN, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research:Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

THARP, R., & GALLIMORE, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life:Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.

TURNER, J.C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts onyoung children’s motivation for literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30,410–441.

VYGOTSKY, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: TheMIT Press.

VYGOTSKY, L.S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press.

WELLS, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practiceand theory of education. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

WELLS, G., CHANG, G.I.M., & MAHER, A. (1990). Creatingclassroom communities of literate thinkers. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperativelearning: Theory and research (pp. 95–121). Westport, CT: Praeger.

WERTSCH, J.V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach

to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.WEST, J. (1996). Getting help when you need it: The relations be-

tween social status and third graders’ helping interactions during literacyevents. In D.J. Leu, C.K., Kinzer, & K.A. Hinchman (Eds.), Literacies forthe 21st century: Research and practice. 45th yearbook of the National ReadingConference (pp. 59–75). Chicago: National Reading Conference.

YOPP, H.K. (1995). A test for assessing phonemic awareness in youngchildren. The Reading Teacher, 49, 20–29.

Received November 21, 2001Final revision received July 3, 2002

Accepted August 14, 2002

A U T H O R S ’ N O T EThis research was partially funded by an Elva Knight Research Grant

from the International Reading Association. The authors acknowledgehelpful comments from the editors of RRQ and three anonymous review-ers. Mona Matthews wishes to thank Joyce Many for her helpful com-ments and insights.


Documents

Children learning with peers: The confluence of peer status and literacy competence within small-group literacy events