Mariana Souto-Manning

The “Why” Behind Teacher Research by Jane Bean-Folkes

%is article begins with an account of how I struggled to find my academic voice, illustrating a common experience

f i r students and teachers of color. It also highlights the importance of teacher research. As professional teachers, we re-

. search every day. We observe, we wonder, and we react to the learning needc of our students. %is piece speaks to my ear4 experiences in order to amp113 those voices that have been silenced and to draw at- tention to the importance of mastering academic language for students of color. Finally, this piece speaks to the kindling of intellectual curiosity around language.

I cannot put my finger on when exactly I fell in love with reading and writing. I do vividly recall my mom, my sisters, and I walking a mile every week to the public library in our newly integrated community every week during the sum- mer before I started 3rd grade. Mom said the walk was good exercise, and that it saved gas. Most days, you could feel the cool breeze come up from the bay, which helped to take your mind off your tired legs. At the library, we would spend hours choosing books- the books that we would read ourselves, and the harder ones that Mom would read to us during the week. The white librarian always remarked how well- behaved we were.

All that summer, I kept a log that included summaries of the books I read. Every time I finished a book and wrote a report, I got to write my name on a bright green frog that went up on the large, plate-glass window in the front of the library. I read so many books that summer that my name was hop- ping all over the window! In fact, as far as I know, it was the first summer a little black girl won the library contest for reading the most books. Needless to say, this made me feel like a “real” reader and writer.

At that point in my childhood, writ- ing for me consisted of retelling the stories I had read, as well as writing the day-to-day stories of my life in a pink ballerina diary. It was safe writing. Never did I try, nor did I even imagine trying, more exciting writing, like that of E.B. White, one of my beloved au- thors at that time. Still, life as a writer was blissful for me until I started 3rd grade with Mrs. Williams.’

Late one September morning, Mrs. Williams walked by my desk and placed my summer essay facedown in front of me. Panning my eyes across the page, I felt the blood drain from my face and my eyes begin to well up with tears as I looked at my grade of C-. My dis- appointment was particularly sharp, because Mrs. Williams was the first (and would be the only) African American teacher I had in elementary school. To this day, I remember smelling the as- sortment of flowers my mother had cut from the garden to bring to Mrs. Williams and the thrill of walking into her classroom and taking my seat for the first time. As a 3rd-grader, I felt like I was now one of the big kids on the block, and I had looked forward to the chance to show off my skill as a writer. Now, however, the marks on my paper looked like one of the Triple-A road maps that Dad used for directions when we went on vacation. In an instant, my writing bubble had been popped.

I was never at a loss for words. I knew what I wanted to say, and I always did well on grammar and spelling ex- ercises. Yet it never seemed to make a difference. Throughout my school ca- reer, I struggled with what scholars refer

to as written academic English-the language used in academic and business settings, which is distinguished from more colloquial “Englishes” by its high level of formality and by the expectation of completeness, “correct” grammar and punctuation, and by the use of conventional phrasing (see, for example, Delpit, 1997; Elbow, 1999).

My experience in Mrs. Williams’ class began what has become a quest as a teacher researcher to understand the tensions and the problems that students of color face when learning to write the academic language. What does it mean to write well? How can teachers create an environment for learning that empowers students, especially students of color? When I became a teacher, I knew that I wanted to find answers to these questions. I understood, too, that in order to help my students understand and utilize the language of school, I needed an understanding of the social and cultural issues that influence stu- dents’ learning processes.

to sociocultural interactions, which have a particular impact on learning for students of color. In my teaching, too, I tend toward the sociocultural perspective on learning; I emphasize the need for a positive socioemotional learning context (Dyson, 1992, 1994; Gee, 1999; John-Steiner & Mahn, 2001), and I embrace approaches to language and literacy that value the cultural hnds of knowledge that all students bring to the classroom and that generally respond to students in socially and culturally sensitive ways (Delpit, 1998). Indeed, for African Americans in particular, a deep con- nection exists between language and identity that has important implica- tions for literacy development (Gee, 2001; Jones, 2006; Lee, 2000), and this, too, has been a major plank of my

Therefore, I have attuned my research

Annual Theme 2011 / 357

research and teaching. Finally, I look to constructivist approaches to language learning-which consider the activity that structures the individual’s ability to maneuver through the process of learn- ing-to provide the foundation for the day-to-day practice of teaching written English (Brown et al., 1993; Vygotsky, 1986/2000).

It was not until I completed school and became a teacher and a graduate researcher that I began to understand clearly the tensions associated with learning academic English for African Americans and other students of color, and to have some idea of the research- and experience-based approaches that teachers can use to assist in this battle. Previously, as a primary and second- ary school student, I had experienced only a vague feeling that something was “wrong” and a deep sense of frustra- tion and self-doubt about my writing. Now, although I consider the issue to be a matter for ongoing research and reflection, I feel that I have a fair sense of the challenges faced by teachers and students alike.

Teachers, for their part, even those who have some familiarity with such issues as the distance between home and school language (which can be a real or perceived barrier for many African American students), often feel that they lack specific tools and techniques to assist students who seem not to “get it” where writing is concerned. Moreover, they also face challenges associated with the limited number of hours in the school day and the demands placed on their use of this time by curricular and assessment requirements. They know, for example, that they need to teach grammar and other language and liter- acy “mechanics,” and they tend to agree that a certain portion of their reading and writing time needs to be spent on these issues-although what propor- tion can be a matter of debate. At the same time, emphasis on such elements tends to lead to or to go hand in hand with teachers becoming caught up in issues of usage when working with their students on their writing, and many teachers may be unaware of how keenly

their students-particularly students of color-feel the content of what they are trying to communicate is being ignored or undervalued.

Early in my career, I sought out the process approach to teaching writing (Calkins, 1994; Graves, 2003; Murray, 2005), which teaches students how to write in a variety of genres and emphasizes the social construction of knowledge. Within the process ap- proach, I found myself teaching the use of grammar and conventions (Bear, Invernezzi, Templeton, &Johnston, 2004; Snowball & Bolton, 1999; Wilde, 1997). Later, however, I shifted to teaching students based more on individual needs, at which time I found that writing workshops (Calkins, 1994) support students of color as writers bet- ter than many other techniques. Today, many of the schools in which I work use a writing workshop approach. Often, students learn about writing during a combination of literacy periods during the day, such as writing workshop, read aloud, and language study, which are also components of balanced literacy.*

The main goal of this literary block of time is to provide students with the tools of writing from the structure of a genre, ways to elaborate and support in learning the conventions of academic language. During this time, the teacher acts as a researcher of her students. The teacher as researcher is able to gain an understanding of the students and of their academic language needs. Studying my own practice and the practice of colleagues in the field, I have been able to understand the importance of the sociocultural context that teach- ers create in their literacy classrooms, as well as how techniques like writing conferences support student learning. The act of teacher research is about get- ting to know your students and their needs-as well as getting to know what we, as teachers, need to learn and to practice in order to provide students with the best possible support.

One encounter that affected me particularly-as a teacher and research- er-happened when I was teaching and researching in a school in the South

Bronx. Zora was the type of learner who was eager to learn and who aimed to please the teacher. Her writer’s note- book work and the editing work in her drafts revealed that she also enjoyed playing with language, she transferred some of her grammar knowledge to her writing, and she wrote for an au- dience. Zora was aware of language and was curious about how it worked. Goodman (2003) refers to this engaged perspective toward language as an es- sential factor in language learning. Zora liked to investigate and to inquire about how language worked, because she liked the responses her peers gave her. From Zora and other African American stu- dents like her, I learned that writing is facilitated by a teacher when a student is in her zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). The need for an en- vironment that empowers writers and for recognizing when Zora was ready to receive guidance from a more knowl- edgeable member stood in the way of her progressing further in her gram- mar use. This also was the issue Ms. Williams faced in knowing what I need- ed to progress as a writer. Ball (2000) writes that, according to Vygotsky, “The best instruction occurs when it proceeds ahead of development, when it awakens and rouses to life those functions that are in the process of maturing” (p. 233).

Another student I observed working through the sociocultural and emotional process of learning the academic lan- guage was Tyree, a vibrant 3rd-grader I remember tackling a unit of study on persuasive writing. “Can I write a letter to my landlord persuading him to fix the front door?” “Yes, Tyree, you can!” Tyree, a sometimes disengaged learner, had made an emotional connection be- tween writing and his own life. In that moment, I realized the power of learn- ing to write well and the importance of teaching academic English to all students. I let go for the moment the issues associated with his speech pattern and written grammar and focused with him on how to construct a persuasive argument. Tyree felt empowered that he could make a difference and that his writing mattered. For Tyree, writing the

358 \ Childhood Education

letter to his landlord was a way to reach out and to connect school and home experience. But it was also a road to learning the academic language, which, in turn, could bring empowerment.

It is important for teachers (and teacher researchers, especially) to be knowledgeable about engaging meth- ods for teaching grammar, methods that construct and scaffold student knowledge of language. Teachers also must be aware of language variation when teaching the academic language. Language learning involves social, emotional, and cultural components. Understanding these components al- lows teachers to truly understand what language is all about. ?he academic language is not just another discourse that disempowers one’s home language.

Ironically, my thirst for learning grammar began late in my academic career when I began to study the dif- ficulties African American students in urban settings face when learning the written academic language. After taking a grammar class, I sought a grammar tutor to assist me in my own writing and help me develop a deeper knowledge for the written academic English that I had not gained after all my years of schooling. This experience changed my grammar perspective from identzj.hg an error in mechanics, such as a run-on sentence, to understanding the error. As a teacher, educator, and researcher, I have realized that teaching about the written academic language is more than identifying mechanical errors. It entails knowledge of the written academic language and the grammar of language, thus providing a common lingua franca through which the teacher and student can dialogue. This is something Ms. Williams was never able to do. She knew what es- sential grammar we needed to learn, but not enough to talk about how it worked and why. I wonder how my journey may have been different if Mrs. Williams had acted as the type of teacher researcher Routman (2000) describes-ne who wonders, records wondering, keeps track of what hap- pens and then tries something new,

and notes the students’ reactions. Teacher research is a contested field

of research (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Mahiri, 2004). Experts contest that its aim is more toward teacher re- flection on practice in order to do their jobs better. With few control groups, no random-assignment studies, and few quantitative analyses, teacher research often lacks the traditional trappings of scientific experimentation. It would not meet the federal government’s new criteria for “scientifically based research” in education, and one would be hard- pressed to find it in certain academic journals (Viadero, 2002). In my work with Tyree and Zora, I would not have come to understand their language and recognize their learning needs from a pre- and post-written analysis, nor would I have learned how to construct environments for learning that would enable them to progress as learners. There are teacher researchers in the field who look at student learning in this way (e.g, the Teacher as Researcher Special Interest Group, www.AERA.net), al- though perhaps not enough. Teacher research is valid because it calls on teachers to examine the context of their students and classrooms. Bissex (1996) calls teacher researchers those who observe and learn, who look and look again-those who question assump- tions, reconsider practice, and continue to question what happens inside the classroom.

As a person of color and a teacher researcher, I was able to work in collab- oration with other teachers to examine some of the tensions that teachers encounter when getting to know their students and their language, and when teaching the written academic language to students of color. My initiation of the research encouraged other teachers I met and worked with to be researchers alongside me.

Teacher researchers look to their practice and to existing research and theoretical literature for answers and take steps to decide what to do to solve a problem. Bogdan and Biklen (2003) state that since it is the people in the setting who must live with the change,

it is their definitions of the situation that are crucial if change is going to work (p. 208). I believe that educators should take an active role in problem solving (Dewey, 1938/1997; Lewin, 1947; McKernan, 1996). It is through a reflective thinking process (Bissex, 1996) that experiences can be made meaningful.

In my research on urban African American students’ acquisition of writ- ten academic English, I found that the teachers felt empowered with greater knowledge for grammar instruction by their participation and felt as if they had additional tools for working with students. We learned that perceptions of language and the value placed on language can affect how African Ameri- can students learn written academic English (Baugh, 1999; Bean-Folkes, 201 1; Elbow, 2002). Teachers, whether consciously or not, carry with them perceptions regarding various language forms and dialects, and how a teacher brings a perceived value of this in the classroom affects students’ learning.

Even though all the teachers stated that they felt positively about African American Vernacular English, their ac- tions did not exactly match their stated beliefs. As a result, we learned that teachers‘ perceptions can create confu- sion for students as learners, especially when the teacher espouses that the language of home is valued but fails to support this view in the classroom. This tension between language and literacy is significant for African American stu- dents (Lee, 2007).

The field of education needs teacher researchers who are capable of uncover- ing and providing insights into teaching and learning from those countless hours with students in the classroom. However, the students with whom I work benefited more from understand- ing the social, emotional, and cultural aspects affecting students, teachers, and learning that this teacher researcher uncovered. The social interaction be- tween student and teacher that occurs every day in classrooms needs closer examination by teachers who are in the field. My study helps to inform the

Annual Theme 2011 / 359

strong sociocultural nature of language learning for African American students. It supports the work of Heath (1983) and Cazden (1988), who argue that language learning is social for African Americans and as a result cannot be relegated to a singular isolated event. It is for these reasons that I believe teacher research can be a powerfd tool in edu- cation settings to uncover the social inequities of schooling.

Notes: ’ All names occurring in this article, apart from citations, are pseudonyms.

Balanced literacy is an approach to teaching that balances reading and writing, teacher support, and student independence. It instructs through reading and writing real authentic, not de-contex- tualized drilling.

References Ball, A. E (2000). Teachers’ developing philoso-

phies on literacy and their use in urban schools: A Vygotskian perspective on internal activity and teacher change. In C. D. Lee & I? Smago- rinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research (pp. 226-255). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Baugh, J. (1999). Considerations in preparing teachers for linguistic diversity. In C. T. Adger, D. Christian, & 0. L. Taylor (Ed.), Making the connection: Language and academic achievement among Ahcan American snllienoa: Proceedings ofa conference of the Coalition on Language Di- versity in Education (pp. 81-95). McHenry, I L Center for Applied Linguistics.

Bean-Fofkes, J. (201 1). Schools ofhope: Teaching literacy in the Obama era. In E. E. Thomas & S. R E Brooks-Tatum (Eds.), Reading Afican American experiences in the Obama era: Beory, aduocag andactivism. (Peter Lang, in press).

Johnston, F. (2004). Word their way: Word study for phonics, vocabu la9 and spelling instruc- tion. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Bear, D. R, Inverniui, M., Templeton, S., &

Bissex, G. (1996). Partial truths: A memoir and essays on reading, writing, and researching. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Bogdan, R C., & Biklen, S. K (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduc- tion to theories and method. Syracuse, NY:

Pearson Education Group. Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa,

K, Gordon, A,, & Campione, J. C. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomom (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychologicaland educational considerations (pp. 188-228). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Calkins, L. (1994). B e art of teaching writing.

Cazden, C. (1988). Chsroom discourse: B e Portsmouth, N H Heinemann.

language of teaching and kaming. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lyde, S. L. (1999). The teacher researcher movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15-25.

Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280-298.

Delpit, L. (1997). Ebonics and culturally respon- sive instruction. Rethinking Schoolr, 12(1), 6-7.

Dewey, J, (1 997). Eq-rience and education. New York: MacMillan. (Original work published 1938)

Dyson, A. H. (1992). Whistle for Willie, lost puppies, and cartoon dogs: The sociocultural dimension of young children’s composing or

toward unmelting pedagogical pots. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24(4), 433-462.

Dyson, A. H. (1 994). Confmnting the split between “the chiwand children: Toward new curricular visions of the child writer (Occasional Paper No. 35). Berkeley, CA: National Center for the Study of Writing, University of Calihr- nia; [Washington, DC]: U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Education Resources Informa- tion Center.

Elbow, I? (1999). Inviting the mother tongue: Beyond “mistakes,” “bad English,” and “wrong language.” Journal ofAdvanced Composition, 13(2), 359-388. Reprinted in Everyone can write: Essays toward a hopefir1 theory of writing and teaching writing. New York Oxford Uni- versity Press, 2000.

Elbow, I? (2002). Vernacular Englishes in the writing classroom: Probing the culture of literacy. In C. Schroeder, I? Bizzell, & H. Fox (Eds.), Alternate discourses and the academy (pp. 1-12). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gee, J. (1999). Critical issues: Reading and the new literacy studies: Reframing the National Academy of Sciences report on reading. Journal ofLitera9 Research, 31(3), 355-374.

Gee, J. (2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review ofResearch in Education, 25,99-125.

Goodman, Y. M. (2003). kluinglanguagestudy: Inquiry into language for ekmentary and miaYk schools. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Graves, D. H. (2003). Writing: Teachmandchil- dren at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with word: Language, I& and work in communities and chrooms.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (2001). Sociocul-

tural approaches to karning and devrlopment: A Vygooakianfiamework. Manuscript submitted for publication.

What teachers can do to make a dfference. Ports- mouth, NH: Heinemann.

Jones, S. (2006). Girlr, socialck~ss, andliteracy:

Lee, C. D. (2000). Signifying in the zone of proximal development. In C. D. Lee & I? Smagorinsky (Ed.), Vygooakianperspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 19 1-225). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, C. D. (2007). Culture, litera9 andkarn- ing: Taking bloom in the m A t of the whirIwid. New York: Teachers College Press.

Human Relations, 1(2), 143-153. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics.

Mahiri, J. (2004). At last. Rerearch in the Teaching

McKernan, J. (1996). Curriculum action research: ofEnglish, 38(4), 467-472.

A handbook ofmethod and resourcesfor the nflcctepMtfitionm London: Kogan Page Limited.

Murray, D. (2005). Write to kam. Boston: ThomsonWadsworth.

Routman, R (2000). Convmations. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Snowball, D., & Bolton, F. (1999). SpellingK-8: Planningand teaching. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Wilde, S. (1997). What: a schwa sound anyway?: A holisticguidc to phonetics, phonics, and spelling. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Viadero, D. (2002). Holding up a mirror: Teacher-researchers use their own classrooms to investigate questions. Education Week, 21(40), 32-35.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mindin society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (2000). Bought and language (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1986)

360 \ Childhood Education