First graders' socially constructed definitions of reading

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
First graders' socially constructed definitions of reading
Physical Description:
ix, 169 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Bondy, Elizabeth
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Reading (Primary)   ( lcsh )
Social interaction in children   ( lcsh )
Perception in children   ( lcsh )
Curriculum and Instruction thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Curriculum and Instruction -- UF
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1984.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 162-168.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Elizabeth Bondy.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 000496912
oclc - 12042403
notis - ACR6139
sobekcm - AA00004888_00001
System ID:
AA00004888:00001

Full Text












FIRST GRADERS' SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED DEFINITIONS OF READING


By


ELIZABETH BONDY














A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY











UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1984




























Copyright 1984

by

Elizabeth Bondy




























To my family--

Bill, Mom, Dad, Cilla, and David













ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


I am grateful to a number of people who lived the graduate school

and dissertation experiences with me. Without these people I might

still have made it through, but the process would have been even more

arduous and much less rewarding.

First, I would like to thank the members of my committee. My

chairperson, Dr. Ruthellen Crews, is a special kind of teacher who is

always eager to learn something new. Her unfailing interest in the

study helped me maintain my own enthusiasm. Dr. Crews has also been

my good friend. I have often been revived and energized by our long,

wide-ranging discussions and the laughter we shared in her office.

Dr. Dorene Ross has always willingly put her own work aside to answer

my questions, help me clarify my thoughts, and point me in the right

direction. Her high standards and quick mind have challenged me to be

the best I can be. Dr. Rod Webb, who gave me a whole new way to think

about schooling, has been an inspiration to me. I have appreciated

his classes, his book, his careful critiques of my papers, his en-

couragement, and his unfading smile. Dr. Ted Hipple is the reason I

stayed on for a Ph.D. I am grateful for his confidence in me, his

sense of humor, and even his "snittish editorial comments." I thank

these talented people for their help and their friendship.

To the teacher who opened her classroom to me I am deeply grate-

ful. Amidst the constant activity and demands of her busy days, she









always greeted me with a smile and eagerly made time to help me in any

way she could. Her warmth and enthusiasm made my task easier. I have

appreciated her trust, her friendship, and all she has taught me about

working with young children. In addition, I thank her students, who

shared themselves with me, and the many teachers at the school who made

me feel so welcome there.

I am also indebted to Amos Hatch, who, more than anyone, made

graduate school the productive adventure it has been. His confidence

in me helped me to have more confidence in myself. I am forever grate-

ful for the many hours we spent thinking, talking, writing, and laughing

together. Other friends who have been especially important to me

include Dr. Sue Kinzer and Cherry Kay Travis. I thank Dr. Kinzer for

always having time, in spite of an often hectic schedule. I thank

Cherry Kay for technical assistance above and beyond the call of duty.

My parents, Anne and Gene Bondy, have helped me in many ways.

Their love and support have provided a firm foundation from which I

could continue to grow, learn, and make mistakes. They have always let

me know that they believed in me and that what I was doing was important.

My husband, Bill Dunn, who has been working on a Ph.D. of his own,

deserves a medal for surviving my degree. These have been difficult

years, but Bill has been patient and supportive throughout. His love

and understanding have given me strength and have brought us closer

together.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . .

ABSTRACT . .


CHAPTER


I BACKGROUND FOR THE STUDY

Statement of the Problem
Significance of the Study.
Definition of Terms. .
Design of the Study. .
Scope of the Study .
Review of the Literature .
Studies of Children's


. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
Perceptions of Reading:


Cognitive-Developmental Perspective .
Studies of Children's Perceptions of Reading:
Social-Interaction Perspective .

II METHODOLOGY . . .


The Setting . .
Selection of Research Site .
Gaining Entry to the Site .
Description of the Site .
Research Methods and Procedures .
Overview . .
Asking Ethnographic Questions .
Collecting Ethnographic Data .
Participant observation .
Interviewing . .
Unobtrusive measures .
Making an Ethnographic Record .
Analyzing Ethnographic Data .
Researcher Qualifications and Biases.
Validity . .

III CHILDREN'S DEFINITIONS OF READING .

Reading Is Saying Words Correctly .
Reading Is Schoolwork . .
Reading Is a Source of Status .


Page

iv

viii











Reading Is a Way to Learn Things .
Reading Is a Private Pleasure. .
Reading Is a Social Activity .

IV CHILDREN'S DEFINITIONS OF READING: PRODUCTS
INTERACTIVE PROCESS. . .

Children's Entering Views of Reading .
Low Group . .
High Group. . .
Teachers' Practices ...........
Reading Is Saying Words Correctly .
Reading Is Schoolwork . .
Reading Is a Source of Status .
Reading Is a Way to Learn Things. .
Reading Is a Private Pleasure and a Soc

V CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS .

Relationship of Findings to Previous Studies
Use of Findings to Research Community. .
Use of Findings to Practitioners .

APPENDIX

A PROJECT OUTLINE. . .

B OCTOBER INTERVIEW WITH MRS. SAUNDERS .

C NOVEMBER INTERVIEW WITH MRS. SAUNDERS .

D DECEMBER INTERVIEW WITH MRS. SAUNDERS. ..

E INTERVIEW WITH TEACHER IN ADJOINING ROOM .

F INTERVIEW WITH KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS .

REFERENCES. . . ... ..

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . .


Page

91
96
99


OF AN
. .


.*
.*
.*




ial


. .
. .
. .





Activity


105

106
106
111
116
116
124
126
130
132

140

143
146
150



156

157

158

159

160

161

162

169









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


FIRST GRADERS' SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED DEFINITIONS OF READING

By

Elizabeth Bondy

August 1984

Chairperson: Dr. Ruthellen Crews
Major Department: Curriculum and Instruction

The purpose of this study was to investigate in detail the defini-

tions of reading constructed by children in one first-grade classroom.

The researcher assumed a social-interaction perspective by which

definitions of reading were viewed as meanings individuals assigned to

reading as a result of their interactions in social contexts. The study

focused on two guiding questions:

1. What are the definitions of reading constructed by members
of the low and high ability reading groups in one first-grade
classroom?

2. Are there patterns in children's definitions within and
across ability groups?

Qualitative research methods were used to collect and analyze data.

Observations were conducted throughout the school day for 150 hours

during the first four months of school. These observations focused on

children's speech messages about reading, their reading-related be-

havior, and their use of reading materials. Formal and informal inter-

views were conducted with children in the low and high reading groups,

their teacher, and the children's kindergarten teachers. In addition,

children's cumulative school records were examined.


viii








Data analysis was an ongoing process which proceeded through several

phases. The analysis revealed six definitions of reading:

1. Reading is saying words correctly.
2. Reading is schoolwork.
3. Reading is a source of status.
4. Reading is a way to learn things.
5. Reading is a private pleasure.
6. Reading is a social activity.

Although definitions were not clearly differentiated by group, low

group children tended to construct the first three definitions, and high

group children tended to construct the second three definitions. No

definitions were shared by all children, and most children used more

than one definition to guide their reading-related behavior. Definition

construction was found to be the result of an interactive process

between the children and the teacher. Specifically, the variables

which seemed to be related to children's definitions were cognitive

developmental factors, children's entering views of reading, home

experiences with written language, personality factors, and the context

in which the defining process took place.

The study highlighted the complexity of teaching and learning

processes. The results suggested that in order for teachers to pro-

vide effective reading instruction for all students, they must become

sensitive to the students' ways of thinking about reading.














CHAPTER I
BACKGROUND FOR THE STUDY



Recent observational studies indicate that prepackaged commercial

programs seem to define the nature of reading instruction in many

elementary classrooms (Duffy & McIntyre, 1980, 1982; Durkin, 1978-1979;

Goodlad, 1983). Researchers have uncovered a pattern of instructional

practice in which teachers move students through basal materials, assign

workbook pages, listen to students recite from texts and workbooks, and

respond to their answers. This input-output model of teaching in which

teachers or materials deposit information and students are expected to

display a particular response fails to account for what may be a criti-

cal factor in teaching and learning: the learners' perceptions of the

object of instruction. That is, learners' perceptions of the skills,

processes, or materials to be learned may influence the way they pro-

cess instruction as well as their learning outcomes. In the area of

reading, children's perceptions of the nature, purposes, and functions

of reading may have great bearing on their progress as readers.1



Statement of the Problem


If children came to classrooms as blank slates, teachers' jobs

would be much easier. However, children enter school with well-formulated


In this study the notion of "perceptions" is interpreted differently
from the traditional cognitive interpretation. See the discussion on
pages 5-7 for clarification.


-1-





-2-


perceptions of the world in general and classroom life in particular.

As they interact with objects and individuals in their environment,

new perceptions develop and old ones are confirmed, modified, or re-

jected. Children use these perceptions in a continuous struggle to

make sense of their world, and their perceptions influence their inter-

pretation of and their response to classroom events. As long as chil-

dren's perceptions and teachers' perceptions are synonymous, classroom

life proceeds smoothly. However, a disparity in views may interfere

with teaching and learning processes. If teachers are to provide

effective instruction for all students, they must learn to recognize

students' views of classroom phenomena. The purpose of this study was

to identify the definitions of reading constructed by students in one

first-grade classroom.



Significance of the Study


Unlike much research and practice in reading instruction which

focus on cognitive aspects of reading, the focus of this study is on

the social milieu in which the learning process occurs. Why study

children's perceptions of reading from this perspective? Researchers

who have examined classrooms as social environments have uncovered

multiple, differentiated forms of social organization within individual

classrooms. The classroom has been shown to be an extremely complex,

dynamic environment in which interacting students and teachers con-

struct and abandon contexts from moment to moment. The social-interaction

research perspective broadens the traditionally held notion of "per-

ceptions" by viewing them as interactionally constructed products of





-3-


classroom contexts. An examination of social contexts, then, can

reveal the perceptions children construct and utilize in the classroom.

McDermott (1977) has pointed out that educational researchers

"have virtually ignored the social context of reading activities"

(p. 154). By focusing on the many contexts in which classroom reading

occurs, the present study attempts to investigate "the work that teachers

and students do together to construct, maintain, and modify their

definitions and conceptions about reading" (Anang, 1982, p. 1). A

careful examination of the social milieu of teaching and learning will

provide insight into the perceptions children construct as well as the

processes by which perceptions are constructed.

The study may yield a number of contributions to both research and

practice in the area of reading. For researchers the study has

methodological significance in that it illustrates the use of a per-

spective and related methods not commonly used in reading research. It

is likely that in addition to yielding products and providing insight

into classroom processes, the study will serve to highlight variables

which can be examined in future research. Further, a study of the

social contexts of reading adds to the small but growing body of re-

search which examines reading and readers in natural settings. By

integrating studies of the external contexts of reading, such as this

one, with studies of the internal or cognitive contexts of reading,

researchers may establish a more fully developed perspective of the

processes of reading and learning to read.

The study will also be of value to practitioners. Detailed de-

scriptions of the studied classroom, the teacher, and the students









may be familiar to many teachers. Teachers may see themselves and

their students in the illustrations included throughout the report of

the study. The recognizability of many features of the studied class-

room contributes to the consciousness-raising value of the study. That

is, the study may help teachers become aware of the dynamic interplay

among classroom participants and the importance of monitoring children's

perceptions of classroom phenomena. Attention to children's percep-

tions can lead to improved instruction, as teachers who become sensitive

to children's ways of thinking are better prepared to provide suitable

learning experiences. Additionally, insight into children's perceptions

of reading can help teachers interpret children's reading behavior.

Weinstein (1983) wrote of the practical value of this kind of research,

It is important for teachers to come to know the world of
school from the perspective of students. Being aware of
students as active interpreters of classroom events forces
teachers to examine more closely the effects of their own
behavior on the recipients of these interventions. (p. 302)


Definition of Terms


While research into children's perceptions of reading has tradi-

tionally been guided by a cognitive-developmental view, some recent

investigators have begun to explore this area from a social-interaction

perspective. Those who have assumed a cognitive-developmental view have

focused on the internal, mental context of reading and reading instruc-

tion, while those who have assumed a social-interaction view have turned

their energies to the external, social contexts of reading. From the

social-interaction perspective "perceptions of reading" are more









accurately thought of as interactionally constructed "definitions of

reading." Below, the terms "cognitive-developmental perspective,"

"social-interaction perspective," "context," and "definitions of read-

ing" are clarified.

Guthrie and Kirsch's (1984) description of the traditional view of

literacy is helpful in characterizing cognitive-developmentally oriented

studies of children's perceptions of reading. First, these studies

view perceptions as cognitive structures that exist in children's minds.

Second, the studies assume that one such structure exists; that is, a

child has one kind of perception of reading. Related to this is the

assumption that a perception is either correct or incorrect. Further,

it is assumed that once individuals acquire the "correct" perception,

they utilize the perception in all contexts. In an effort to identify

universal patterns in the cognitive development of children's percep-

tions of reading, researchers have typically focused on identifying

perceptions under carefully controlled experimental conditions.

Unlike the cognitive perspective which focuses on "contexts in the

mind" (Cazden, 1982, p. 418), the social-interaction perspective focuses

on the contexts in which individuals act and the interactions among

individuals within those contexts. The theoretical orientation known

as symbolic interactionism provides a framework for this approach. A

basic principle of this theory is that in order to understand people's

behavior, one must discover the meanings or definitions they attribute

to the object, process, activity, or individual of interest. Defini-

tions are not viewed as inherent in objects or activities; rather, they

arise "out of the social interaction one has with others" (Blumer,

1969, p. 24). Blumer summarized the approach as follows:





-6-


Symbolic interactionism sees meaning as arising in
the process of interaction between people. The meaning of
a thing for a person grows out of the ways in which other
persons act toward the person with regard to the thing.
Their actions operate to define the thing for the person.
Thus, symbolic interactionism sees meanings as social
products, as creations that are formed in and through
the defining activities of people as they interact. (pp. 4-5)

From this perspective there is no single abstract, correct defini-

tion of reading but many definitions that are actively constructed by

individuals as they interact in various settings. "Human experience is

such," wrote Denzin (1978), "that the process of defining objects is

ever-changing, subject to redefinitions, relocations, and realignments"

(p. 7). These definitions determine the ways the individual behaves as

a "reader." In order to understand a child's reading behavior, then,

one must gain access to his or her definition of reading. Social-

interaction studies of children's perceptions of reading attempt to

discover interactionally constituted definitions through careful study

of the situations in which definitions are created. As Blumer (1969)

wrote of symbolic interactionism, this perspective "lodges its problems

in [the] natural world, conducts its studies in it, and derives its

interpretations from such naturalistic studies" (p. 47).

Context, as it is used in this study, refers to more than the

physical setting in which an event occurs. Students of social and

communicative environments have developed the notion of context to

refer to "the constellation of norms, mutual rights, and obligations

that shape social relationships, determine participants' perceptions

about what goes on, and influence learning" (Gumperz, 1981, p. 5).

Contexts are established as people interact with one another. Together

individuals define the situation and rules for appropriate participation.





-7-


In the classroom, contexts can change from moment to moment. Children

who engage in reading throughout the school day (Griffin, 1977) may

construct a number of definitions which serve to guide their behavior.

Definitions of reading refer to the outcomes of the active process

children engage in when assigning meaning to the things of their world.

From a social-interaction perspective individuals construct definitions

through their interactions in social contexts. Characteristics of the

context contribute to decisions about "what counts as reading" (Heap,

1980). According to Heap these characteristics include

who the speakers and hearers are; who they take each other
to be; how much they know about each other; how much they
know that the others know about them; their reasons for
interacting, for doing, whatever they are now doing together;
their beliefs and assumptions about what they are doing
together. (p. 283)

In the multiple and changing contexts of the classroom, children and

teachers engage in an ongoing process of defining reading. Awareness

of established definitions helps in interpreting and understanding

individual and group behavior.



Design of the Study


Having received approval from the University Committee for the

Protection of Human Subjects and the county school board, the researcher

established an observation schedule with a first-grade teacher who had

previously agreed to have the study conducted in her classroom. Obser-

vations began during the public school preplanning week in August and

continued until the December vacation. The researcher observed 150

hours of classroom activity representing all days of the week and times









during the school day. Observations were focused on children's speech

messages about reading, their reading-related behavior, and their use

of reading materials. Formal and informal interviews were also con-

ducted throughout the observation period. Those interviewed included

the teacher, the children in the low and high reading groups, and the

children's kindergarten teachers. In addition, children's cumulative

school records were examined.

Data analysis was conducted throughout the study as described by

Spradley (1980). Data were organized into categories or domains based

on similarities among recorded events. Taxonomies were then constructed

to represent children's definitions of reading by drawing data from

across domains. Taxonomies, then, contained data from several differ-

ent domains all of which served to indicate children's definitions of

reading.



Scope of the Study


This study was conducted in one first-grade classroom and focused

on the reading-related behavior of approximately half of the students

in that room. These students included the nine members of the low

reading group and the six members of the high reading group. Observa-

tions and interviews were restricted to the first four months of the

school year. Had the study been conducted in the same classroom from

January until May, different findings may have resulted due to striking

curricular and instructional changes which had been implemented.

Although the study can provide insight into teaching and learning









processes, specific findings about these children's definitions of

reading should not be generalized to other populations.


Review of the Literature

A review of the literature on children's perceptions of reading

provides necessary background for the questions raised in the present

study. The review is organized into studies based on the cognitive-

developmental perspective and those based on the social-interaction

perspective. Following the review, guiding questions for the present

study are clarified.


Studies of Children's Perceptions of Reading:
Cognitive-Developmental Perspective


Downing (1979) noted that reading specialists were slow to recog-

nize the significance of Piaget's (1959) and Vygotsky's (1962) findings

about children's language perceptions. Piaget found that children of

beginning school age had little awareness of the functions of communi-

cation. In the area of written communication, Vygotsky found young

children to have only vague ideas about the usefulness of writing.

Reading researchers did not begin to examine children's perceptions

of reading until the late 1950s. The relevance of their findings for

a theory of how children learn to read was not realized for at least

another decade.

Using interviews and paper-and-pencil tests, several researchers

in the 1950s and 1960s attempted to assess children's perceptions of





-10-


reading. In an early study, Edwards (1958) asked questions of second,

third, and fourth graders of normal to superior intelligence, assigned

to remedial reading classes, to identify their definitions of a "good

reader." The subjects shared the perception that good reading was a

matter of speed and fluency. Edwards concluded that "children could

form a concept of the reading process which is not the same as the one

held by the teacher" (p. 24). As a misconception about the nature of

good reading could lead to reading difficulties, Edwards recommended

that the teacher must "make certain that the child at no time loses

sight of the true purpose of reading, the getting of meaning" (p. 241).

Later, Denny and Weintraub (1963) reviewed some of the early studies

and concluded that "almost nothing is known of how the beginning reader

sees the reading act" (p. 363). The following review of unpublished

and unavailable studies by McConkie, Muskopf, and Edwards is based on

Denny and Weintraub's report.

McConkie (as cited in Denny & Weintraub, 1963) interviewed 81

kindergarten children to discover their perceptions of reading and

possible differences in the perceptions of boys and girls. Denny and

Weintraub summarized the findings as follows: "Great variability was

found in children's ability to define reading; however, almost all

children were able to verbalize some concept about the meaning of

reading" (p. 363).

Denny and Weintraub reported that Muskopf examined the relation-

ships between first graders' concept of reading and intelligence,

reading achievement, and the instructional approach used by their

teachers. After having administered a forced-choice, paper-and-pencil





-11-


test to first graders at the end of the school year, Muskopf concluded

that there was no significant correlation between a child's concept of

reading and his/her reading achievement. He acknowledged the question-

able validity of the instrument used to measure concepts of reading.

Finally, Denny and Weintraub described Edward's study of the rela-

tionship between fifth-grade children's concept of reading and their

reading achievement. Only a slight correlation between the two vari-

ables was found. As was the case in the Muskopf study, Edwards pointed

out the questionable validity of the self-constructed reading concept

instrument.

Having reviewed the meager data available, Denny and Weintraub

concluded, "There is a crucial need for more information about the

beginning reader's concepts of the reading act and about his insights

into himself as a potential reader" (1963, p. 364). They outlined a

proposal for an interview study to be conducted with first graders at

the beginning and end of the school year.

Weintraub and Denny (1965) reported the findings from beginning of

the year interviews of first graders. The researchers grouped children's

responses to the question "What is reading?" into seven categories.

They found that more than 25% of the subjects "failed to verbalize an

intelligible idea of the reading act" (p. 327). The three major

response categories were (a) object-related responses (33%), such as

"Reading is when you read a book"; (b) vague responses or those in which

children said they did not know (27%); and (c) cognitive responses

(20%), such as "reading is how to read and how to learn things." The

researchers found only minor response differences between boys and





-12-


girls. Based on their findings, they suggested that teachers should

help children to think of reading as "a thinking, meaningful act"

(p. 327).

Denny and Weintraub (1966) also asked beginning first graders the

following questions: (a) Do you want to learn to read? Why? (b) What

must you do to learn how to read in first grade? They summarized their

findings as follows: "A fourth of all those entering first-graders

could express no logical, meaningful purpose for learning to read and

a third of the children had no idea how it was to be accomplished"

(p. 447). The reasons children gave for wanting to learn to read in-

cluded (a) wanting to read for themselves and to others; (b) wanting to

achieve a goal, such as "become smart"; (c) identifying with someone

who was a reader; and (d) placing a value on reading, suchas, "It's fun."

In response to the second question, the majority of responses were

placed in an "I don't know"/vague response category. The others were

obedience-oriented ("Do what the teacher says"), other-directed

("Teacher will show us how"), or self-directed ("Read to myself").

The researchers did not draw conclusions from this study which was

designed to be exploratory and descriptive.

Reid's (1966) study of 12 five-year-old children in Scotland explored

the development of reading and writing concepts during the first year

of schooling. She interviewed subjects after two, five, and nine

months in school, each time asking a different set of questions. Her

finding that "reading is a mysterious activity, to which [children]

come with only the vaguest of expectancies" (p. 60) was replicated with

a group of children in England (Downing, 1970, 1971-1972). Believing





-13-


that the reproduction form of response required by Reid might be dif-

ficult for young children, Downing (1970) added two procedures to hisstudy

of 13 four- and five-year-old children. First, Downing interviewed the

subjects after two months of school. Following the interview he had

subjects respond to questions about concrete stimuli such as color

photographs. For instance, subjects were asked to sort photographs into

"reading" and "not reading" categories. In the final task, subjects

were presented with auditory stimuli and asked yes/no questions about

the stimuli. For the first set of stimuli, subjects were to say "yes"

if they heard a word and "no" if what they heard was not a word. For

the second set of stimuli, they repeated the procedure for the concept

"sound." Downing concluded that, indeed, young children have a vague

notion of the purpose of reading and of the activities involved in

reading. Concerning the methodology utilized, Downing concluded that

children demonstrated more advanced ability in the presence of concrete

objects than in the interview situation.

Downing (1969) was motivated to pursue investigations of children's

perceptions of reading by his conviction that "children's thoughts about

reading, their notions or conceptions of its purpose and nature, present

the most fundamental and significant problems for the teacher of

reading" (p. 217). Downing and his colleagues (Evanechko, Ollila,

Downing, & Braun, 1973) developed an instrument to measure reading

readiness and to determine the best group of subtests for predicting

end of first grade reading achievement. The battery was administered

to 97 first-grade children. The four tested areas included concept of

the reading task, perceptual ability, linguistic competence, and





-14-


cognitive functioning. It was found that performance on subtests in

all four areas predicted success in reading. The authors further con-

tended that for a readiness test to serve a diagnostic function, it

should have a range of subtests representing the four general areas

cited above.

Blanton and Mason (1970) investigated the relationship between

knowledge about reading and later achievement. These researchers found

a significant relationship between 5 year olds' scores on the Individual

Reading Interest Survey and their scores on the Wide Range Achievement

Test. They suggested that teachers must "ascertain what information

and beliefs about reading are held by their students before blindly

plunging into reading readiness activities or reading instruction"

(p. 45).

Following the development and testing of their first reading

readiness survey, Downing and his colleagues decided to revise and

extend the subtests in the original battery to create a new test that

would focus exclusively on children's conceptions of literacy. Ayers

and Downing (1982) reported on the development of the new instrument,

the Linguistic Awareness in Reading Readiness (LARR) Test (Downing,

Ayers, & Schaeffer, 1982). Reliability and validity were established

by administering the LARR Test to kindergarten children and following

up in first grade with a test of reading achievement. The LARR Test

was found to be a significant predictor of later reading achievement.

In other studies, Downing, Ollila, and Oliver (1975, 1977) investi-

gated the relationship between children's reading concepts and their

pre-school experiences. Results of studies with Canadian Indian





-15-


children (1975) and with children representing a range of socio-

economic levels (1977) led the researchers to conclude that "experience

at home is an important factor in learning the purposes of reading and

writing" (Downing, 1979, p. 12).

In a study of Native American Headstart children's language con-

cepts, Oliver (1975) reached a conclusion similar to that expressed by

Downing et al. Oliver found that home experiences seemed to be related

to children's reading and writing concepts. Based on task performance and

interview data from 78 three-, four-, and five-year-old children, Oliver sug-

gested that "experiences with books, learning activities, watching

television, and interacting with other children seem to have had more

effect on concept building than did age" (pp. 868-869).

During the same time period in which Downing conducted his earliest

studies, Johns (1970) was asking children the question, "What is

reading?" Over three years he asked the question of children in fourth,

fifth, and sixth grades. Their responses led Johns to suggest "that a

better understanding of reading should be acquired by elementary

children" (p. 657). He then posed the question, "Would it not be

beneficial, then, to tell children what reading is all about?" (p. 648).

In his next investigation of children's concepts of reading, Johns

(1972) explored the relationship between reading concepts and reading

achievement. Fifty-three fourth graders were interviewed individually,

and their responses to the question "What is reading?" were recorded.

Responses were then classified into one of the following five cate-

gories: (a) no response, "I don't know," or a vague response;

(b) classroom procedures, such as, "You read a story and do workbook





-16-


pages"; (c) word recognition, such as, "Saying words"; (d) meaning or

understanding, such as, "It's when you read a story and know what it's

about"; and (e) meaning and word recognition, such as, "You learn the

words and read the story and you're supposed to know what it means."

Reading achievement was determined by administering vocabulary and

comprehension subtests of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests Survey D.

A significant positive correlation was found between the children's

concept of reading and their reading achievement. Johns concluded that

the results were encouraging and that children's concepts of reading

warranted further investigation. "It may be," wrote Johns, "that one

of the contributing factors to children's reading achievement is their

understanding of the reading process" (p. 57).

In an effort to compare the concepts of reading held by good and

poor readers, Johns (1974) asked 103 fourth and fifth graders, "What

is reading?" Responses were then sorted into the five categories out-

lined above. The comprehension subtest of the Gates-MacGinitie Survey D

was administered to identify good and poor readers. Good readers were

those children who scored a year or more above grade placement; poor

readers scored a year or more below grade placement. Johns found that

good readers gave significantly greater number of meaningful definitions

of reading (in categories three, four, and five) than poor readers. He

identified several questions needing careful reflection in the future,

among them, "What should a meaningful concept of reading include?" and

"How should children's concepts of reading be explored?" (p. 60).

In a subsequent study Johns and Ellis (1976) investigated the

views of reading held by 1,655 students in grades one through eight.





-17-


Children were individually interviewed and asked the following ques-

tions: (a) "What is reading?" (b) "What do you do when you read?" and

(c) "If someone didn't know how to read, what would you tell him/her

that he/she would need to learn?" (p. 119). Children's taped responses

were assigned to the same a priori categories listed above. Responses

for each question were analyzed for general trends and differences in

sex and grade. The researchers identified five major conclusions:

1. Many students have little or no understanding of
the reading process.
2. Older students have a somewhat better understanding
of the reading process than younger students.
3. There were few sex differences in the data. How-
ever, when differences existed it was revealed that boys
gave more vague or irrelevant responses than girls. Also,
girls appeared to be more aware of the fact that decoding
and meaning were essential for reading.
4. Most of the meaningful responses described reading
as a decoding process. It may be that teachers are over-
emphasizing decoding or "sounding out" strategies to the
exclusion of the role meaning plays in reading.
5. Many children have a very restricted view of
reading. They described reading as an activity occurring
in the classroom or school environment which utilized a
textbook. (pp. 125-126)

As a practical implication of their findings Johns and Ellis (1976)

recommended that teachers help students "grasp a worthwhile concept of

reading" (p. 126). For researchers the authors recommended investiga-

tions of the effects of teaching children a concept of reading on their

reading achievement. Further, they suggested that a variety of tech-

niques be utilized to explore children's concepts of reading. Their

examples included in-depth interviews and questionnaires.

Tovey's (1976) interview study of children's perceptions of read-

ing assumed a different focus from the studies which preceded it. Tovey

designed his questions to reflect several features of a psycholinguistic





-18-


approach to reading. He was specifically interested in children's

perceptions of reading as a silent process, as a process of deriving

meaning from written language, as a predictive process, and as a pro-

cess utilizing three cue systems. During 15- to 20-minute individual

interview sessions Tovey questioned 30 children, five each from grades

one through six. His findings were summarized as follows: (a) Children

perceived reading as an oral activity; (b) One-fifth indicated that

reading had something to do with meaning, while the largest percentage

spoke of reading in terms of decoding; (c) The majority of children

expressed the view that each letter and word must be processed to obtain

meaning; and (d) Most of the children perceived the graphophonic cue

system as the only strategy for decoding print. Tovey concluded that

children's responses reflected the way they had been taught to think

about reading. The findings imply "that teachers are using the 'word

recognition equals reading' model" (p. 540). He advocated that children

be encouraged to use psycholinguistic concepts and processes as they

learn to derive meaning from text.

In a study of preschool children's print awareness, Hiebert (1981)

used a different methodology from earlier studies and found different

results from those studies (e.g., Weintraub & Denny, 1965; Reid, 1966).

Hiebert examined two areas: (a) children's reading readiness skills,

such as visual discrimination; and (b) their knowledge of processes

involved in and purposes of print. Her objectives were to establish

developmental patterns of print-related concepts and skills and to

determine interrelationships among the concepts and skills. To tap

children's knowledge of print processes and purposes, Hiebert designed





-19-


tasks which utilized meaningful stimuli in concrete situations. For

example, in one task the investigator read orally from a book and then

asked the child to name the activity he/she had just observed. Unlike

earlier researchers, then, Hiebert presented her 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old

children with concrete reading-related tasks in meaningful contexts.

Hiebert found that "when exposed to print within meaningful con-

texts, children in the present study seemed quite aware of print and

its use" (1981, p. 254). While Hiebert's purpose was to identify

developmental patterns in print awareness, she was particularly sensi-

tive to the impact of socio-cultural factors on the developmental

process. In addition to the influence of meaningful contexts, Hiebert

pointed out the impact of time and place on opportunities to learn about

print. The popularity of Sesame Street and other children's television

programs, the proliferation of signs and labels in a child's environ-

ment, and the abundance of children's books may have contributed to the

greater awareness of print demonstrated by her subjects than subjects

in the 1950s and early 1960s. Pointing to her findings that readiness

skills and concepts appear to develop in an integrated fashion as

children accumulate experiences with print, Hiebert advocated that

"information used to structure reading experiences should come from

careful documentation of what children actually do in naturalistic and

school settings" (p. 257).

In an effort to understand why poverty children so often had

difficulties with beginning reading, Ferreiro and Teberosky (1982)

interviewed Argentinean first graders at the beginning, middle, and end

of the school year. The authors clarified their perspective by noting,





-20-


Obviously we are aware of the presence of factors external
to schooling that are involved in failures, but we believe
that there are also internal factors--directly related to
the external ones--that stem as much from the conception of
learning as from the objective purposes the school hopes to
achieve. (p. 90)

The authors' view was that children construct conceptualizations about

the nature of written language just as they construct understandings of

other phenomena of their world. This Piagetian perspective guided the

authors in identifying developmental stages in children's conceptions

of a variety of features of reading. Among the areas examined were

children's understanding of letters and punctuation marks and their

understanding of the relationship between drawing and print. Children's

responses to a variety of tasks and questions indicated that their con-

ceptions of the nature of reading represented a range of levels of cog-

nitive development. The authors pointed out that school instruction

tends to be based on adult definitions of reading concepts and processes.

As a result, only those children who have achieved more advanced levels

of conceptualization can benefit from traditional instruction. Other

children "will have more difficulty reconciling adult proposals with

their own hypotheses about written texts" (p. 89). Recognition of

the existence of differing conceptualizations requires that teachers

rethink some of their most taken-for-granted assumptions about teaching.

For example, before attempting to teach children a set of "easy" sight

words, a teacher must ask, "Easy for whom, easy from whose point of

view, from whose definition of easy?" (p. 51).

Saracho (1983) conducted a study of children's perceptions of

reading to identify factors that influence the reading performance of





-21-


bilingual bicultural children. This researcher's goal was to analyze

4- through 8-year-old Mexican American children's perceptions in terms

of their cognitive styles. She found that "young children in the study

were insensitive to or unaware of many important dimensions of read-

ing" and suggested, "Since knowledge about reading is necessary for

the acquisition of reading skills, educators may need to incorporate

programs to teach young children to realize that the main purpose of

reading is to abstract meaning from the written word" (p. 217).

Saracho's analysis of developmental trends in perceptions revealed that

children's perceptions of reading were "more closely related to their

experience with reading than to anything else" (p. 217), including

developmental shifts. She recommended that teachers use information

about children's cognitive styles as well as their perceptions of the

reading process to improve instruction.

A recent study investigated the effects of instruction on kinder-

garten children's perceptions of the nature and purpose of reading.

Mayfield (1983) used a code systems approach to provide children with

25 minutes of daily instruction for 20 days. This approach was de-

signed to help children explore code or symbol systems in their environ-

ment, to learn concepts and vocabulary related to code systems, and to

consider the uses of code systems. Pre- and post-treatment measures of

children's perceptions of reading were obtained through interview

questions and performance on several subtests of the Evanechko et al.

(1973) reading readiness test. Mayfield's findings indicated that code

system instruction led to improved, more adult-like perceptions of

reading. Regarding methods of identifying children's perceptions,





-22-


Mayfield concluded that interview questions alone were probably not

useful in obtaining accurate perceptions. Her observation that children's

responses to interview questions were frequently contradicted by their

performance on test items led her to point out that children might

understand a concept without being able to verbalize it. Mayfield

recommended that instruments designed to identify perceptions of read-

ing be improved and that code systems instruction be integrated into

kindergarten programs.

The reviewed studies have contributed to our knowledge of children's

perceptions of reading. It is becoming increasingly clear that chil-

dren's concepts of reading are positively related to their reading

achievement (Blanton & Mason, 1970; Evanechko, Ollila, Downing, & Braun,

1973; Johns, 1972; Johns & Ellis, 1976). A number of the studies have

indicated that children's concepts of reading are strikingly different

from teachers' concepts (Edwards, 1958; Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982;

Johns, 1972; Weintraub & Denny, 1965). Many children seem to perceive

of reading as a decoding process (Johns & Ellis, 1976; Tovey, 1976),

while their teachers believe that text comprehension is the goal of

reading. Home experiences with reading have been found to be related

to children's perceptions (Downing, Ollila, & Oliver, 1975, 1977;

Oliver, 1975; Saracho, 1983), and developmental stages in children's

perceptions of reading have been identified (Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982).

Although some researchers claimed that young children have a vague notion

of the purposes of reading (Downing, 1970, 1971-1972; Reid, 1966),

others demonstrated that even preschool children were aware of print

uses when presented with tasks in meaningful contexts (Hiebert, 1981).





-23-


Despite these contributions there remain gaps in our understanding

of young readers and their views of reading. For example, we do not

know why children develop the perceptions of reading that they do. In

addition, we do not know whether children use one perception of reading

in all settings or whether, as suggested by Hiebert (1981), their per-

ceptions are related to the context at hand. We also do not know why

there seem to be differences in the perceptions of good and poor

readers. Furthermore, we know little about the role of children's

perceptions of reading in the ongoing life of the classroom. These

remaining questions are due in part to the methods which have been used

to investigate children's perceptions. Most of the reviewed studies

had several features in common. One, they all attempted to identify

children's understanding of reading at a particular moment in time

rather than over time. Two, they all relied heavily on interviewing

and paper-and-pencil tests. Three, they all removed subjects from

natural settings. In an effort to identify and to generalize children's

thoughts about reading, the contexts in which thinking occurred tended

to be neglected. When context was addressed, it was found to be a sig-

nificant factor in children's perceptions of reading (Hiebert, 1981).

A small group of recent studies has begun to address some of the

noted gaps in previous research findings. In the following section a

second and much smaller set of studies of children's perceptions of

reading is reviewed. These studies represent a perspective which focuses

on the contexts in which behavior takes place.





-24-


Studies of Children's Perceptions of Reading:
Social-Interaction Perspective


A growing body of naturalistic studies have explored reading from

a social-interaction perspective. For instance, researchers have

studied the operation of reading groups (e.g., McDermott, 1976), the

development of literacy in children (e.g., Heath, 1983; Taylor, 1983),

and the experiences children have with reading throughout the school

day (Griffin, 1977). However, very few researchers have attempted to

study children's perceptions of reading from this perspective. In the

following section these few studies are reviewed.

Roth's (1980, 1983) 10-month study of 10 children in two first-

grade classrooms focused on the "meanings" or "sense children come to

make of reading over time" (1983, p. 5). Participant observation

and interviewing were used to collect data before, during, and after

the first-grade year. Through her analysis of the teachers' and students'

behavior patterns, Roth discovered the shared definition of reading

developed in each classroom. In one room "reading is a teacher-determined

task which: 1) needs to be completed within a given time period and

2) entails remembering what is read in order to repeat it for the

teacher upon request" (1983, p. 10). In the second classroom "reading

is a teacher-determined task which is done in order to: 1) understand

the meaning of what is read and 2) share how it relates to personal

experience" (1983, p. 11). Although before-school interviews indicated

that children eagerly anticipated learning how to read in the first

grade, as the year progressed children began to see reading in terms

of required tasks, especially paper-and-pencil activities. According





-25-


to Roth (1983), "One of the most telling indications of the impact of

schooling is seen in the way the children take on their teachers'

definitions of reading" (p. 11).

The relationship between teachers' behavior and students' concep-

tions of reading comprehension was the focus of a study by Mosenthal

(1983). More specifically, Mosenthal wondered whether differences in

the ways teachers organized reading instruction influenced the ways

students came to understand appropriate classroom comprehension.

Two fourth-grade teachers representing distinct teaching ideologies

were identified. The first reflected an academic ideology. This

teacher's instruction was characterized by features such as close ad-

herance to the teacher's manual and frequent rejections of student

responses drawn from sources other than the specific text at hand. The

second teacher's instruction reflected a cognitive-developmental

ideology. This teacher tended to adapt and modify the teacher's manual

and was likely to accept answers based on students' prior knowledge or

on past or future text. To ascertain the students' definitions of

appropriate reading comprehension, story-related questions were con-

structed for each teacher's low, middle, and high reading groups. Once

each group finished reading a section of a story aloud, the teachers

asked a set of experimenter-constructed questions. The students'

responses were classified according to the sources used to answer them.

For instance, was the response based on prior knowledge, prior text, or

current text? When a response appeared to be based on prior knowledge,

the subject was interviewed to determine whether this was in fact the

case. Responses were also categorized according to whether they were





-26-


identical to text, inferrable from text, or an embellishment of the

text. Comparisons were then made between students' responses in the

two classrooms.

Mosenthal found that significant differences existed between the

kinds of responses given by students in the two classrooms. Students'

responses reflected their definitions of reading comprehension, defini-

tions they shared with their teachers. Mosenthal summarized as follows:

The importance of this study is that it demonstrates the
need to consider more than text or reader variables in
describing how children acquire reading competence. .
the study demonstrates that teacher ideology, as reflected
in the organization of classroom social situation, is an
important variable influencing children's reading
acquisition. (p. 546)

In a study of junior high students, Bloome (1982) investigated

in-school and out-of-school contexts in which students engaged in

reading. His purpose was to discover the definitions of reading con-

structed by students as they interacted in various contexts. So as to

avoid imposing his own definitions on participants' behavior, Bloome

(1980) considered reading to be indicated by an activity meeting any of

the following criteria:

1. defined as reading by participants
2. eye gaze in the direction of print
3. an instructional lesson defined as a reading
lesson
4. the potential use by participants of printed
symbols to communicate
5. communication about something read or to be
read. (p. 6)

Bloome stressed that the criteria were "merely signals that a reading

activity may be occurring" (p. 6).

Bloome collected data over an 11-month period through the use of

ethnographic techniques such as participant observation, videotaping,





-27-


and ethnographic interviews. Although a complete description of find-

ings is forthcoming, some information is already available (Bloome,

1982). For example, a close analysis of students' postural configura-

tions revealed a continuum of reading contexts called the social-

isolated reading continuum. One end of the continuum, isolated reading,

was typical of reading done inside the classroom. Isolated reading was

characterized by one student interacting with one text. Bloome found

that "activities officially labeled READING seemed to be primarily

'isolated reading'" (p. 22). The other end of the continuum, social

reading, was characterized by several students interacting with a

single text and one another simultaneously. This kind of reading was

most often found outside of the classroom. Bloome suggested the possi-

bility that people may define reading as a social activity involving

"the structuring of relationships between people, the establishing of

norms for participation, etc." (p. 25). According to Bloome, "reading"

may be an even more complex phenomenon than investigators have thought.

He suggested that insight into the ways in which teachers and learners

define reading may have implications for instruction, evaluation, and

future research.

The three reviewed studies focused on identifying interactionally

constructed definitions of reading. While Roth and Mosenthal concen-

trated on elementary-aged children who adopted their teachers' defini-

tion of reading, Bloome studied junior high students as they defined

reading in multiple contexts. These studies have begun to fill in some

of the gaps left by the earlier studies. For example, they provided

insight into why children develop the perceptions of reading that they





-28-


do. In addition, the Bloome (1982) study provided evidence that chil-

dren constructed multiple definitions of reading as they interacted in

various contexts. Nevertheless, questions about children's definitions

of reading remain. It is still not clear whether children use one or

more than one definition of reading at a given stage in their develop-

ment. We also do not know how to account for the differences in the

perceptions of good and poor readers. Additionally, the three reviewed

studies suggest important questions about children's definitions of

reading in the classroom setting. Is there just one definition of

reading constructed in a classroom? If not, what kinds of definitions

are constructed? Do all classroom participants construct the same

definitions of reading? What consequences do children's definitions

have for their success or failure as readers?

The purpose of the present study is to address some of the un-

answered questions in this area of research. The following broad

questions served to guide the investigation:

1. What are the definitions of reading constructed by
members of the low and high reading groups in one first-grade
classroom?
2. Are there patterns in children's definitions within
and across ability groups?

In the following chapters the methodology, findings, and implica-

tions of the study are discussed. In Chapter II, the methodology is

described. Chapters III and IV present the study's findings. Conclu-

sions and implications are discussed in Chapter V.














CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY


Qualitative research methods were used to investigate first-grade

children's perceptions of reading in this study. Bogdan and Biklen

(1982) outlined several features which characterize this kind of in-

quiry: (a) Research is conducted within the particular setting under

study; (b) The researcher is the main research instrument; (c) Data are

descriptive; (d) The focus is on ongoing processes rather than pro-

ducts; (e) Data are analyzed inductively; and (f) The researcher is

concerned with understanding the perspectives of the people under study.

The approach may also be called "naturalistic," as the objective was

"to illuminate social realities, human perceptions, and organizational

realities untainted by the intrusion of formal measurement procedures

or reordering the situation to fit the preconceived notions of the

investigation" (Owens, 1982, p. 7). A qualitative, naturalistic re-

search approach can yield "a literal description that figuratively

transports the readers into the situation with a sense of insight,

understanding, and illumination not only of the facts or the events in

the case, but also the texture, the quality, and the power of the con-

text as the participants in the situation experienced it" (Owens, 1982,

p. 8). Wilcox (1982) described qualitative research as "a naturalistic,

observational, descriptive, contextual, open-ended, and in-depth


-29-





-30-


approach to doing research" (p. 462). Why use such an approach to

study children's definitions of reading?

In this study the researcher assumed a social-interaction perspec-

tive grounded in Blumer's (1969) symbolic interactionist theory. Accord-

ing to this perspective, "objects are social products in that they are

formed and transformed by the defining process that takes place in social

interaction" (Blumer, 1969, p. 69). Reading, then, is not an abstract

construct with inherent characteristics, but a product of the inter-

actions of individuals in various contexts. In order to understand

children's definitions of reading, the researcher must closely examine

the social interactions within which definitions are constructed.

According to Denzin (1978), "Interactionists regard human interaction

as their basic source of data" (p. 7). A social-interactional investi-

gation of children's perceptions of reading must focus on the contexts

in which children have opportunities to work out the meanings of read-

ing. A qualitative research approach provides a methodology com-

patible with the social-interaction perspective and suitable for the

investigation of interactionally constituted definitions of reading.

According to Blumer (1969), "No theorizing, however ingenious, and

no observance of scientific protocol, however meticulous, are substi-

tutes for developing a familiarity with what is actually going on in

the sphere of life under study" (p. 39). Blumer advocated the disci-

plined use of exploration and inspection in the examination of the

social world. He conceived of the naturalistic method as the

methodological perspective of symbolic interactionism. The following

quote summarizes Blumer's research approach:





-31-


Exploration and inspection, representing respectively
depiction and analysis, constitute the necessary procedure
in direct examination of the empirical social world. They
comprise what is sometimes spoken of as "naturalistic"
investigation--investigation that is directed to a given
empirical world in its natural, ongoing character instead
of to a simulation of such a world, or to an abstraction
from it or to a substitute for the world in the form
of a present image of it. Naturalistic inquiry, embracing
the dual procedures of exploration and inspection, is
clearly necessary in the scientific study of human group
life. (pp. 46-47)

In this study, interactions within a first-grade classroom were

explored and inspected through the use of qualitative, naturalistic

methods. These methods were borrowed from the disciplines of anthro-

pology and sociology and could be characterized as ethnographic. In

this chapter the researcher's methods and procedures are described.

Included are discussions of the setting, the research model and each

of its components, the issue of validity, and researcher qualifications

and biases. The first topic, the setting, is described in three sec-

tions: the selection of the site, gaining entry to the site, and a

description of the site.



The Setting


Selection of Research Site


The study was conducted in one first-grade classroom. The selec-

tion of the classroom was guided by several criteria established on the

basis of project objectives. The criteria for classroom selection were

as follows: (a) a first-grade classroom, to ensure that all children

would be engaged in formal reading instruction from the beginning of





-32-


the school year; (b) a classroom in which children had opportunities to

interact and read throughout the school day; and (c) a teacher who was

comfortable having an observer in the classroom. An additional con-

sideration, though not a requirement, was that the teacher and researcher

already be acquainted. According to Lofland (1971), access to desired

information is more easily gained when the researcher uses "pre-existing

relations of trust as a route into the setting, rather than 'going in

cold'" (p. 95). It was believed that a harmonious researcher-teacher

relationship would be more easily established if a friendly rapport

already existed between the two. The researcher was acquainted with

the first-grade teachers in five public schools. The selected teacher,

Mrs. Saunders,1 met all criteria and was one with whom the researcher had

a friendly rapport.



Gaining Entry to the Site


Once the teacher was selected, the researcher visited her in her

classroom to make an appointment for an initial meeting. The meeting

took place in the spring. The researcher's goals for this meeting were

to explain project purposes and plans and to ask Mrs. Saunders' per-

mission to conduct the study in her classroom. A brief outline of the

proposed project had been prepared and was shared with the teacher (see

Appendix A). By discussing the study in general terms, the researcher

attempted to avoid influencing project outcomes. The lengthy data

collection period also minimized the possibility that this initial


The teacher's name and all students' names are pseudonyms.





-33-


discussion would have an impact on study findings. In addition to

explaining guiding questions and research methods, the researcher

explained her reasons for choosing the classroom. During the initial

meeting the researcher also described what her role would be in the

class. She explained that although she would be spending much of her

time writing and asking questions, she would make time to talk with

Mrs. Saunders to answer her questions and discuss concerns about the

study. The researcher also assured Mrs. Saunders that she would have

access to the study's findings. The teacher listened and responded

enthusiastically during the meeting. She expressed great interest in

the researcher's questions and agreed that they were important to in-

vestigate. She said she was "honored" that her classroom had been

selected, and she would be happy to be involved in the study.

On the same morning the researcher met with the school principal to

explain the proposed study and to get his informal permission to con-

duct the study at his school. A copy of the project outline was shared

with the principal. He agreed to the plan and reminded the researcher

that the project had to be approved by the district office before it

could be implemented.

Two sets of paperwork were required for official approval of the

project. In order to gain entry to the classroom, an application to

conduct research in the district public schools was submitted to the

school district office. A description of the proposed project and a

parental consent letter were submitted to the University's Committee

for the Protection of Human Subjects. By the end of June the project

was approved by the school district's director of research and by the





-34-


University Committee. Written parental consent was obtained from all

parents in September. The researcher contacted the teacher to inform

her of the project's approval and to make plans for meeting during the

public schools' preplanning week in August.

The purposes of the preplanning week meeting were to remind the

teacher of the objectives and methods of the study and to interview her

concerning her decisions and plans for reading instruction. During this

meeting the researcher established that she would observe in the class-

room for 10 hours each week until the December holiday. Although the

teacher claimed that she did not need to have an observation schedule

because she was accustomed to being observed, the researcher promised

to tell her ahead of time when she would be observing. The researcher

asked the teacher's advice concerning the best way to obtain parents'

signatures on consent forms. The teacher suggested that the researcher

attend and speak at the first parents' meeting in early September at

which time she could introduce herself and explain her project. Finally,

it was agreed during this meeting that the researcher would come to

observe the first day of school.



Description of the Site


The study was conducted in a public elementary school in a large

southeastern city. The 30-year-old school was in a neighborhood that

had been characterized until recently as middle class. In recent years

the growing number of rental units and the increasingly transient popu-

lation have caused some city residents to consider the community to be





-35-


lower-middle class. The 600-member student body was 70% white and 30%

black and represented families in middle to lower socio-economic groups.

The majority of students were bused to and from school.

In the school there were four classrooms for each grade, kinder-

garten through fifth. Although there was not a gymnasium, there was an

art room, music room, media center, auditorium, and a cafeteria. The

following full-time support teachers were on the faculty: curriculum

specialist, varying exceptionalities teacher, gifted teacher, guidance

counselor, music teacher, media specialist, and physical education

teacher. A one-half time art teacher and a four-fifths time speech

teacher were also available.

The studied classroom filled half of a large space which also

housed a kindergarten. A playhouse and a bookshelf formed the partial

barrier between the two classrooms. Children and adults frequently

passed from one classroom to the next to borrow materials, to send

messages, to use the bathroom, and to teach or join a lesson. As shown

in Figure 1, the classroom was typical of many primary rooms. A chalk-

board lined one wall, while individual "cubbies" lined another, and

jalousie windows covered the third. Children sat at individual desks,

the organization of which was shifted by the teacher several times

during the first half of the school year. Her preferred plan consisted

of three groups of desks, with the desks in each group pushed together

forming a single rectangular surface. The seating arrangement was

determined by friendships and work habits rather than by ability groups.

Although children spent much of the school day at their desks,

they worked and played at other locations, too. Reading groups met




-36-


[1 I
00O


DI
DI F


DLI


co
0
.0
a
CL


-IJ

-II
LI




FLI


LI
DLI


LID
DI0
0]0F


-ID1
LILZ


wcn
F]1
w~r





-37-


daily at a semi-circular reading table. This table was in front of the

chalkboard and also served as the teacher's desk. Sometimes children

were permitted to work outside at a picnic table. A quiet area in the

back corner of the room was used as a work place and also as a play

area, particularly by girls playing school. A listening center con-

sisting of a table with an audio tape player and individual earphones

was often used by children who listened to a tape-recorded story while

reading along in the book. On a long table by the listening center

there were sometimes art materials which children could use after finish-

ing their work. Often children used the floor to play games and put

puzzles together. The playhouse was a popular choice for some of the

girls. During free play periods, many children stayed at their desks

or gathered around one child's desk to draw, read, and play games.

In the classroom, children's artwork was displayed more often than

their academic work. Seasonal and holiday art projects resulted in

decorations which hung on windows, bulletin boards, and the playhouse. On

a section of one wall the teacher had painted a math facts rocket.

Different levels of the rocket represented different levels of addition

and subtraction facts. When a child could say all the facts for a par-

ticular level, his/her nametag was raised to that level of the rocket.

The alphabet written in the county-adopted handwriting style was posted

above the chalkboard. Commercially produced posters representing the

short vowel sounds were hung on the chalkboard and later on the play-

house.

To acquaint the reader with the operation of the classroom, a

typical day is summarized. The teacher arrived at school at 7:30 A.M.





-38-


From this time until the children came in at 9:00 A.M. she planned,

talked with the teacher next door, and took care of other school respon-

sibilities. Attendance and lunch count were taken after the children

came in. The "line leaders" for the day took the attendance and lunch

information to the office and cafeteria. During this time the rest of

the children read a book, drew, or talked quietly with one another. Then,

the teacher introduced the children to their morning work. Typically

they had five tasks or "smilies" required of them. Some smilies required

instruction while others were assigned as practice exercises. Throughout

the morning the teacher met with each of the four reading groups. While

a reading group met, the other students worked on their smilies. When

children had completed all their smilies, they turned in folders con-

taining all assignments. Once work was turned in, children could choose

an activity such as reading, drawing, a special art project, a puzzle,

or any number of educational games. During the morning the class left

at least once for half an hour to go to a special class such as physical

education, music, or art. Twenty minutes of outdoor freeplay occurred

before 11 A.M. During this time the teacher checked the work in

children's folders. From 11:00-11:30 the teacher taught a math lesson.

After math the class went to lunch.

Returning from lunch at 12:10, the next 45 minutes were used by

the children to correct errors in their morning work and by the teacher

to meet with individual children who needed extra help. The teacher

announced daily the names of the children who were "superstars," that

is, those children who completed all their smilies without errors. The

remaining two hours of the school day were filled with activities such





-39-


as sharing time, a teacher-read story, a whole-class phonics lesson,

a special class, outdoor freeplay, and a science or social studies

activity. The children were dismissed at 3 P.M., and the teacher left

around 5:00 P.M.

The teacher, Mrs. Saunders, was a white woman who had taught for

about 15 years in two states. She had a master's degree in early child-

hood education and, during the course of the study, she applied and was

accepted to a specialist program, also in early childhood. She had

taught in private and public schools, in primary grades and in pre-

kindergarten programs. Having taught in a university laboratory school

and a federally funded model program, she was accustomed to working with

a variety of adult observers. Mrs. Saunders had taught for nine years

in this county and for six years at this school.

In addition to teaching, Mrs. Saunders was involved in professional

organizations. She was an active member of the Association for Child-

hood Education International, helped plan for the organization's con-

ference, and presented a paper at the meeting. Mrs. Saunders was also

actively involved in an education honorary organization. Due to her

reputation as an effective teacher, she was often invited to speak at

meetings and conferences.

Mrs. Saunders was respected and admired on a personal as well as

a professional level. During the study it was clear that she had warm

relationships with her students and with a number of the other teachers,

and she was very popular with student teachers. Her sense of humor and

constant optimism added to her popularity with students and peers.

The relationship which developed between Mrs. Saunders and the

researcher was trusting and harmonious. Researcher and teacher





-40-


conversations covered a wide range of personal and professional topics,

some related to project goals, many unrelated. Mrs. Saunders talked

openly about her family, difficult periods in her life, personal and

professional failures and frustrations, fears and concerns about stu-

dents, and school gossip. She often asked the researcher if she would

come to lunch and once invited her to a colleague's birthday celebra-

tion. Her attitude toward the researcher was conveyed in the following

remarks she made after the fieldwork period had ended. The researcher

had an appointment with the teacher to conduct an interview and began

by apologizing for taking up so much of the teacher's time:

Mrs. Saunders: Oh no, you're not! I miss you so much!
I love to have you come. You're so interested. You
really care about the kids and what they're doing. I
loved having you here because there was someone to ap-
preciate what I was doing.

Mrs. Saunders seemed genuinely to enjoy having the researcher in her

classroom. Not only was she comfortable being observed, but she ap-

preciated the attention and the opportunity to talk about herself, her

teaching, and her students.

There were 27 students in Mrs. Saunders' classroom. Of the 17

girls and 10 boys there were 9 black and 18 white children. Eight chil-

dren received free lunch and one paid a reduced price. All children had

attended kindergarten. The children in the top and the bottom reading

groups were the focus of the study. The groups were determined by

children's performance on the reading subtests of the Metropolitan

Readiness Test, the Metropolitan Achievement Test, and by their scores

on criterion-referenced tests of the county-adopted basal reader series.

The six white girls in the top group began the year in the first of the





-41-


two second-grade books. In the bottom reading group there were nine

children--two white boys, one white girl, three black boys, and three

black girls. This group began the year reading in the first pre-primer.

Although the two groups used different reading books and workbooks,

they used some of the same reading-related materials. These included

a phonics workbook and worksheets based on weekly "basic reading

vocabulary" words.



Research Methods and Procedures


Overview


Children's interactionally constructed definitions of reading were

explored and inspected through a qualitative and naturalistic research

approach. Spradley (1979, 1980), an anthropologist, has organized and

synthesized traditional ethnographic methods into a systematic set of

procedures called the Developmental Research Sequence. He referred to

the research sequence as a methodology designed for the investigation

of meaning. Spradley's research model was adapted for use in this

study, the goal of which was to discover the definitions or "meanings"

children made of reading (Roth, 1980, 1983) in one first-grade class-

room.

The ethnographic research model is cyclic rather than linear in

nature. That is, unlike the traditional, experimental researcher who

identifies hypotheses, collects data to test the hypotheses, analyzes

the data, and draws conclusions, the qualitative researcher utilizing

this model engages in a cyclical process of questioning, collecting data,





-42-


recording data, and analyzing data. Throughout the course of the study,

the sequence of questioning, collecting, recording, and analyzing was

repeated. Questions served to direct observations and from observations

emerged questions to provide further direction. Data analysis was not

the culmination of the research act, but an integral part of the re-

search cycle.



Asking Ethnographic Questions


Questioning is a critical element of the research cycle because

the questions the researcher asks direct data collection and lead him/her

closer to the perspectives of the people being studied. Not only are

questions posed prior to the study, but new questions are formulated

throughout the research period. A characteristic of this research

approach is that it begins without precise hypotheses which may "close

off prematurely the process of discovery of that which is significant

in the setting" (Wilcox, 1982, p. 459). While attempting to transcend

the influence of "preconceived ideas" which may bias the outcome of the

study, the researcher formulates "foreshadowed problems" to direct his

investigation. Malinowski (1922) distinguished between preconceived

ideas and foreshadowed problems as follows: "Preconceived ideas are

pernicious in any scientific work, but foreshadowed problems are the

main endowment of a scientific thinker, and these problems are first

revealed to the observer by his theoretical studies" (p. 9). In this

study two broad questions were posed to provide a general framework for

the research:





-43-


1. What are the definitions of reading constructed by
members of the low and high reading groups in one first-grade
classroom?
2. Are there patterns in children's definitions within
and across ability groups?

While foreshadowed problems served to guide the overall direction

of the study, other kinds of questions were asked during the course of

the research. These questions included descriptive questions, struc-

tural questions, and contrast questions. Each kind of question led to

a different kind of observation and was associated with a different level

of data analysis. The three types of questions are defined as follows:

1. Descriptive questions were asked during the earliest observa-

tions when the researcher had little knowledge of the life of the class-

room. These general questions included "What is the daily schedule?"

"Who are the people in this classroom?" "How is the physical space

utilized?" and "When and where do children read?" These questions led

to descriptive observations which enabled the researcher to develop an

initial description of the unfamiliar setting.

2. Structural questions were asked following initial data analysis.

The purpose of asking structural questions was to add depth to identi-

fied categories of behaviors, objects, places, and people in the class-

room. For instance, it was found that the teacher asked many questions

of students throughout the school day. The structural question posed

by the researcher was "What are all the kinds of questions the teacher

asks?" The researcher also observed that children read in various

places in the classroom. The resulting structural question was "What

are all the places in which children read?" These and other structural

questions were asked repeatedly, the goal being to discover as many





-44-


answers as possible. In searching for answers the researcher made

focused observations. This type of observation enabled the researcher

to narrow the scope of the research and to discover the larger and

smaller categories existing in the classroom.

3. Contrast questions were posed following further data analysis.

After focused observations had filled in elements in the categories of

interest, such as the kinds of questions the teacher asked, contrast

questions were asked to identify differences among the elements. For

example, among the kinds of questions teachers asked were quiz questions

("What sound does that 'e' make?") and comprehension-check questions

("Why would there be a safe in a bank?"). To ensure that the two kinds

of questions were distinct elements in the category of teacher questions,

the researcher asked the contrast question, "How are these kinds of

questions different?" The question led to selective observations in

which the researcher searched the fieldnotes and conducted additional

field observations looking for differences between the two kinds of

questions.

Spradley (1980) suggested that the three types of questions and

observations be thought of as a funnel. The descriptive questions and

observations are "the broad rim of the funnel" (p. 128); structural

questions and focused observations narrow the scope of the study and

are represented by the narrower part of the funnel; contrast questions

and selective observations are represented by the small, narrow opening

at the bottom of the funnel. Ethnographic questions and their related

kind of observations are "the basic unit of all ethnographic inquiry"

(Spradley, 1980, p. 73). The questions asked determine the type of





-45-


observations made; questions and observations shape the course of data

collection. What kind of data were collected in this study? What

methods did the researcher use to collect data? These questions are

addressed in the following section.


Collecting Ethnographic Data


The researcher's objective was to discover and describe the defini-

tions of reading constructed by first-grade children. Since definitions

were not as easily observed as concrete phenomena such as teacher and

student questions and the use of reading materials, the researcher

utilized other kinds of data as indicators of children's definitions

(Barton & Lazarsfeld, 1969; Becker, 1970). According to Spradley (1980),

people everywhere make use of three types of information to make in-

ferences about what others know. He summarized, "We observe what people

do (cultural behavior); we observe things people make and use such as

clothes and tools (cultural artifacts); and we listen to what people

say (speech messages)" (p. 10). In this study the researcher used a

similar method of collecting evidence and making inferences. Barton and

Lazarsfeld (1969) stated the logic behind this practice: "The under-

lying assumption .. is that a phenomenon which cannot be directly

observed will nevertheless leave traces which, properly interpreted,

permit the phenomenon to be identified and studied" (p. 170).

In this study the researcher used children's speech messages about

reading, their reading-related behavior, and their use of reading

materials as indicators of "the less easily observed phenomena," their





-46-


definitions of reading (Becker, 1970, p. 28). Ethnographic data, then,

included what Spradley (1980) called speech messages, cultural behavior,

and cultural artifacts. How were these data collected?

Three main methods were used to collect data. According to Wolcott

(1976), the use of a variety of modes of gathering information may be

seen as "a critical underlying aspect of ethnography" (p. 35). Pelto

and Pelto (1978) suggested that a characteristic of ethnographic research

is its multi-instrument approach. Furthermore, these authors asserted

that "examining cultural behavior with a variety of different approaches

greatly enhances the credibility of research results" (p. 121). Denzin

(1978) also advocated the use of multiple methods of observation, or

triangulation. "Triangulation," he contended, "is a plan of action

that will raise sociologists above the personalistic biases that stem

from single methodologies. By combining methods observers can

partially overcome the deficiencies that flow from one investigator or

one method" (p. 294). The three methods of data collection used in the

study were participant observation, informant interviewing, and unob-

trusive measures. First these methods will be described. Then, prob-

lems inherent in the methods and the manner in which the problems were

managed will be discussed.


Participant observation

According to Schwartz and Jacobs (1979), participant observation

is the principal tool of the qualitative, naturalistic method. This

field method requires that the researcher





-47-


directly [participate] in the sense that he has durable
social relations in [the social system under investigation].
He may or may not play an active part in events, or he may
interview participants in events which may be considered
part of the process of observation. (Zelditch, 1969, p. 9)

Wolcott (1976) pointed out that school settings offer few formal roles

for the researcher to assume and hence participate in the social scene,

as traditional ethnographers have done. However, the role claimed by

the participant observer, or the role which subjects assign him/her,

has consequences for what he/she will be able to learn. Wrote

Schwartz and Jacobs (1979),

Who you are and where you are within such a world have a
role in creating that world and in fashioning the colored
glasses through which you see it and it sees you. .
the initial social role (and/or status) adopted by the
participant-observer usually remains fixed throughout his
study. It will define for him and others the way in which
he is part of the social world which he is studying.
(pp. 50, 52)

In this study the researcher was a "known observer" (Schwartz &

Jacobs, 1979, p. 55). Mrs. Saunders was aware of the researcher's pur-

poses, and the students were told that the researcher wanted to find

out what children do in first grade. The researcher's identity was

described to the students as "the one who writes and asks questions."

It was believed that this role would allow the researcher to "best study

those aspects of society in which [she] is interested" (Gold, 1969,

p. 38). As Strauss, Schatzman, Bucher, Ehrlich, and Sabshin (1969)

reported, it was necessary to restate the researcher's identity several

times during the study to remind students how to interact with the re-

searcher. When students began to ask the researcher for help on assign-

ments, for example, the researcher or the teacher announced that the





-48-


students would have to ask someone else because the researcher was there

to write and ask questions.

The type of researcher participation with the people and in the

activities observed was characterized as passive (Spradley, 1980). Re-

garding passive participation Spradley wrote, "The ethnographer engaged

in passive participation is present at the scene of action but does not

participate or interact with other people to any great extent" (p. 59).

During the first month of the project, the researcher rarely interacted

with students. Typically she stationed herself on the outskirts of the

classroom and recorded observed activities. She avoided eye contact

with students and ignored those who attempted to get her attention.

However, as the study progressed, the researcher began to ask questions

of students to gain greater insight into their behaviors, speech mes-

sages, and use of artifacts. During this period of increased inter-

action the researcher alternated between remaining at a fixed location

and moving around the classroom. Throughout the study the researcher

interacted with the teacher. Strategies utilized in student and

teacher interviewing will be discussed in a subsequent section.

Although the earliest observations were directed toward a general

description of the classroom, the majority of observations were oriented

toward reading-related activity. There were a number of occasions

during the school day when children engaged in reading or talking about

reading. For instance, some children chose books as soon as they

entered the classroom in the morning. Reading usually took place during

the introduction and explanation of morning work. While the children

worked on morning assignments, more reading took place. Reading occurred





-49-


during reading groups and during free time. There was also reading

and reading-related talk during story time in the afternoon. The re-

searcher directed her observations to occasions such as these when

children were involved with reading. In addition, the researcher ob-

served during seven of the children's Tuesday afternoon library visits.

Observations in the classroom and in the library focused on the activi-

ties of the 15 children who were in the top and bottom reading groups.

The researcher observed 150 hours of classroom activity over a

four-month period in the fall of 1983. Observations were approximately

evenly distributed across all days of the week and times of the day.

A total of 48 observations were made on the following days: 10 Mondays,

10 Tuesday, 10 Wednesdays, 11 Thursdays, 7 Fridays. As the researcher

completed an observation, she told the teacher when she would return.

This manner of scheduling was requested by the teacher.


Interviewing


Two types of interviewing were utilized in this study: formal

interviewing and informal interviewing (Spradley, 1980). Formal inter-

views were those which occurred as a result of a request by the re-

searcher. In these cases the researcher had particular questions in

mind and asked the informants to schedule a time when they could meet

with her. Formal interviews were conducted with the teacher, the

teacher in the adjoining classroom, the kindergarten teachers of the

studied children, and the children. These interviews took the form of

"guided conversations" as described by Lofland (1971). Lofland sum-

marized the nature of guided conversations as follows:





-50-


the aim [is] to provide for oneself a list of things
to be sure to ask about when talking to the person inter-
viewed. It is because of this aim that this type of device
is called an interview guide rather than an interview schedule
or questionnaire. One wants the interviewee to speak freely
and in his own terms about a set of concerns you bring to the
interaction, plus whatever else the interviewee might
introduce. (p. 84)

Although core questions provided a framework for formal interviews, the

conversational nature of these interviews often led to additional ques-

tions and to unanticipated, volunteered information from interviewees.

For example, the following core questions were identified to guide

interviews with students in the top and bottom reading groups:

1. Do you see people reading now? How do you know they're
reading?
2. Who is the best reader in the class? How do you
know?
3. What reading do you do when you're at school? At
home? Is there someone else at home who reads? Who? What
kind of reading does this person do?
4. Are you a good reader? How do you know?
5. Why do people read?

During one interview, a girl volunteered, "My mamma teached me [to read]

when I was five years old." This statement prompted the researcher to

ask, "Tell me what she taught you." This kind of conversational give-

and-take resulting in new questions and unexpected data was typical of

interviewing in this study. Core questions for formal interviews with

Mrs. Saunders, the teacher in the adjoining room, and the kindergarten

teachers are in Appendices B, C, D, E, and F.

Informal interviews occurred on those occasions when the researcher

asked questions of the children and teacher during the course of par-

ticipant observation. The questions were typically suggested by an

observed event rather than determined in advance. For example, when





-51-


children worked on seatwork assignments, the researcher asked such

questions as "What are you doing?" "How are you supposed to do it?" and

"Why did the teacher have you do this page?" The majority of informal

teacher interviewing took place during periods when the children were

not in the room. The researcher often asked the teacher to comment on

a child's behavior. For instance, the researcher frequently asked

questions such as, "What do you think was going on with Tommy during

reading group?" or "Why do you think Susie had so much trouble with the

vocabulary worksheet?" So as to avoid disrupting classroom activity,

the researcher refrained from questioning the teacher during instruc-

tional time unless the teacher initiated the interaction. Often when

the teacher initiated an interaction she did so to fill the researcher

in on an event the researcher had missed. The teacher was a valuable

informant in that she frequently volunteered information about children's

activities that the researcher had not been present to observe.


Unobtrusive measures


Webb, Campbell, Schwartz, and Sechrest (1966) defined unobtrusive

measures as "measures that do not require the cooperation of a [subject]

and that do not themselves contaminate the [data]" (p. 2). Denzin (1978)

explained that "the use of unobtrusive measures represents an awareness

on the part of sociologists that their presence as observers is foreign,

and therefore in some sense reactive" (p. 257). In other words, as

Schwartz and Jacobs (1979) explained, the investigator's presence and

activities affect the social process being studied. Unobtrusive measures





-52-


minimize the possibility that the observer's presence "may change the

very world being examined" (Schwartz & Jacobs, 1979, p. 75). The spe-

cific measures used included physical trace analysis and document

analysis.

According to Denzin (1978), "physical trace analysis is most appro-

priately viewed as a strategy for recording the incidence, frequency,

and distribution of social acts toward certain social objects through

time and in various situations" (p. 260). In this study the researcher

noted both the children's and the teacher's use of reading-related

materials. She recorded children's choices of trade books during free

time and their subsequent use of chosen books. Children's use of assigned

materials was also recorded, and completed assignments were often ex-

amined when the children left the room. Use of other materials such as

word cards and lists, individual 10" x 12" chalkboards, drawing paper,

encyclopedias, and library books was also recorded. The teacher's

choice and use of instructional materials were noted as were the teacher-

student interactions that took place regarding reading-related materials.

The analyzed documents were the children's cumulative school re-

cords. Individual folders contained the following information:

physician's report; personal history, including developmental milestones,

social development, and interests; family data, such as address, phone

number, and parents' occupations; scores on the Metropolitan Readiness

Test or the Metropolitan Achievement Test, primer level; kindergarten

report cards, including the instructional strategy to which the child

was assigned on the basis of the state's Primary Education Program; and

results of screening for speech and gifted programs. It was felt that

these data would be helpful in supplementing the researcher's observations.





-53-


Although unobtrusive measures do not present the same problems as

participant observation and interviewing, they also do not permit much

insight into the perspectives of the people being studied. The researcher's

goal was to overcome the shortcomings of participant observation and

interviewing by triangulating the three methods. The combining of

methods is not only characteristic of ethnographic research but is

recommended by many qualitative researchers (Becker & Geer, 1969; Denzin,

1978; McCall & Simmons, 1969; Pelto & Pelto, 1978; Schwartz & Jacobs,

1979; Webb et al., 1966). What are the problems with participant ob-

servation and interviewing, and how were these problems managed? These

questions are addressed below.

There are problems inherent in participant observation which must

be addressed if the researcher is to have confidence in the quality of

the data collected. McCall and Simmons (1969) summarized three cate-

gories of threats to data collection as follows: "1) reactive effects

of the observer's presence or activities on the phenomena being ob-

served; 2) distorting effects of selective perception and interpretation

on the observer's part; and 3) limitations on the observer's ability to

witness all relevant aspects of the phenomena in question" (p. 78).

These problems may distort collected data such that the researcher's

written records do not represent the naturally occurring events of the

classroom. In this study procedures were incorporated to minimize the

potentially damaging effects of the problems of participant observa-

tion.

The first problem, observer effects on the behavior of teacher and

children, confounds almost all research (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982). The





-54-


researcher took several steps to minimize the problem. First, one of

the criteria used in selecting a classroom to be studied was that the

teacher be accustomed to having observers in the room. Not only was the

studied teacher comfortable with other adults in her room, but the

children were constantly exposed to other adults including university

students, volunteering parents, an aide, and observers from other

schools. The researcher's presence, then, was not unusual or intimi-

dating to either teacher or children. Another feature of the study

which helped the researcher determine the effects of her presence on

classroom activity was the length of time she spent in the classroom.

Observations began on August 17th during preplanning week and continued

through December 16th. This lengthy observation period enabled the re-

searcher to become a taken-for-granted part of the classroom. By re-

maining on the outskirts of classroom activity and avoiding eye contact

with children during the first weeks of the study, the researcher

quickly blended into the background. In addition, by reminding children

of the researcher's role--the one who writes and asks questions--the

teacher and the researcher made it clear to the children that the re-

searcher was not another teacher. One indication of the children's

lack of attention to her was their tendency to misbehave in her presence.

For example, the researcher sat in on a reading group conducted by a

student teacher, Ms. Clark. The following excerpt demonstrates that

the students were not inhibited by the researcher, nor did they per-

ceive her as an authority figure in the classroom. Had Mrs. Saunders

been observing the lesson, the students would not have misbehaved as

they did:





-55-


Ms. Clark: Okay, so you're going to read the words and the
sentences and put the words in the right sentence. Can
anyone do the first one?
Ellen: Can I get something to drink, Ms. Clark, please?
Ms. Clark: When we're finished.
Ellen: No, now. I'm thirsty.
Ms. Clark asks someone to do the next one.
Ms. Clark reads the sentence: "The food good." So
what is it?
Robin: Smells.
Ms. Clark, to Ellen, who leans back in the chair and looks
around the room: Ellen, what will you write in number two?
Robin: Stupid. We write "stupid page."
Ms. Clark: Ellen, the longer you take, the longer it's going
to be before you can go to the bathroom.
Ellen: It's a drink I want!
Ms. Clark: Well, same thing.
Ellen: I have to go blow my nose. (she stands)
Ms. Clark: Ellen, here's a kleenex, right here. (Ellen,
Robin, and Tracey all take kleenex and start blowing their
noses.)

Another advantage of the length of time spent observing in the

classroom was that the researcher could use her knowledge of the setting

and of children's typical behavior patterns to judge the naturalness of

observed events. Although the great majority of children's behavior

seemed to be unaffected by the researcher's presence, some episodes

reflected observer effects. For instance, children occasionally "showed

off" for the researcher, as the following brief excerpt illustrates:

I sit by the book table. Mike walks to the booktable and
begins picking up books. As he picks one up he says: See
this one? This an easy one. I can read this one. As he
continues, books slide off the table onto the floor. After
repeating this for about 15 books, he leaves the table.
He walks across two of the books he has dropped and makes
no attempt to pick any of them up.

Another check on observer effects was made by interviewing the

teacher who shared the room with Mrs. Saunders. Not only was this

teacher a close friend of Mrs. Saunders, but she was frequently in and

out of Mrs. Saunders' side of the room. The researcher asked the teacher





-56-


what kind of influence she thought the researcher's presence and

activities were having on Mrs. Saunders' behavior. The teacher's

comments follow:

I really don't think you have much influence on her. You're
really quiet when you're in there, and you've sort of made
it clear to the children because of your posture and your
behavior that you're not one of the helping teachers. The
only thing that I've noticed is that her hostess behavior
is up a little bit. I mean that I think she is poised
for company and for adult questioning more than she usually
is. But as far as her behavior with the kids, I can't tell
when you're in there and when you're not. Her teaching style
and her conversational tone with the kids don't change. I
have to go and look to see if you're there. I don't
feel like she's conscious of anything except your wish to
see the real situation.

Yet another procedure utilized to check on observer effects was to

compare children's and teacher's behavior in different situations.

Wilson (1977) suggested that the researcher compare the following:

a) what a subject says in response to a question; b) what
he says to other people; c) what he says in various situa-
tions; d) what he says at various times; e) what he actually
does; f) various nonverbal signals about the matter (for
example, body postures); and g) what those who are signifi-
cant to the person feel, say, and do about the matter.
(pp. 256-257)

By comparing speech messages, behavior, and use of materials, the researcher

could ascertain the degree to which observed events were unaffected or

natural. In addition to using her own fieldnotes to compare behaviors,

the researcher had access to fieldnotes recorded by an investigator who

had conducted a study in Mrs. Saunders' room during the previous school

year. Teacher-oriented observational and interview data from the second

study were strikingly similar to the data collected on the teacher in

the present study.

To summarize, the researcher took several steps to minimize and

to determine observer effects on studied behavior. A classroom was





-57-


selected in which observers were commonplace; the researcher spent 150

hours in the classroom; the researcher clearly established her role with

the teacher and children; the researcher compared data from various

sources; and the researcher interviewed another teacher to get her per-

ceptions of the researcher's impact on classroom life. The second

problem area concerned the effects of observer bias on data collection.

As Wilson (1977) pointed out, "No one, of course, enters a situation

a true tabula rasa previous experiences influence the scientist's

observation and thought" (p. 251). Observed phenomena are "selected

and filtered as well as interpreted and evaluated" (Schwartz & Schwartz,

1969, p. 90) by the investigator who enters the research site with

opinions, prejudices, and assumptions. Steps must be taken to deter-

mine the effect of observer subjectivity on recorded data.

Two features of the study which helped the researcher transcend

bias were the study's length and the nature of data collection. As

Bogdan and Biklen (1982) pointed out, "The researcher spends a con-

siderable amount of time in the empirical world laboriously collecting

and reviewing piles of data. The data that are collected provide

a much more detailed rendering of events than even the most creatively

prejudiced mind might have imagined prior to the study" (p. 42). In

addition to striving to record detailed, concrete, verbatim accounts of

observed behavior over a long period of time, the researcher included

subjective remarks and reflections in brackets. These subjective com-

ments served to remind the researcher of her prejudices and their

possible impact on the data collected. The process of confronting

personal biases is the main method of limiting their distorting effects.





-58-


Schwartz and Schwartz (1969) summarized the assumptions and conditions

of the active monitoring of researcher bias:

Implicit here is the assumption that bias is a universal
phenomenon; that the observer can and does know what his
biases are; and that, knowing what they are, he can, by
specifying them prevent distortions of his observations.
There are at least three conditions that need to be ful-
filled before this suggestion can be put into effect. The
observer must 1) be motivated to look for his biases;
2) look for them actively and, having come upon a bias,
explore its meaning and ramifications; and 3) look upon
the uncovering of his biases as a continuous process of
discovery--as an ongoing process to which there is no
end. (p. 103)

The researcher's biases grew out of her experiences as a public school

student, a teacher, and as an advanced graduate student specializing in

reading and working with preservice teachers. As these experiences are

related to the researcher's preparation for conducting the study, they

will be discussed in the section on researcher qualifications and biases.

The final problem inherent in participant observation, the re-

searcher's inability to observe and record all events related to

children's definitions of reading, was addressed in three ways. First,

by spending 150 hours observing in the classroom, the researcher was

confident that she had captured a thorough description of relevant

aspects of the phenomenon under investigation. Second, the teacher

served as a valuable informant, filling the researcher in on events

she had not directly observed. Third, the researcher's use of inter-

viewing and unobtrusive measures filled in gaps in observational data.

For instance, kindergarten teachers provided data which the researcher

could not have observed, and the children described some of their own

experiences and thoughts which otherwise would have been inaccessible





-59-


to the researcher. Regarding the use of participant observation and

interviewing, Becker and Geer (1969) noted, "There is considerable value

in using the strong points of one method to illuminate the shortcomings

of another" (p. 331). What are the shortcomings of interviewing?

McCall and Simmons (1969) summarized three primary threats to the

interpretability of interview data as follows: "1) the reactive effects

of the interview situation upon the received testimony; 2) distortions

in testimony; and 3) repertorial inabilities of the interviewee" (p. 104).

The main method of assessing the extent of these problems was by sup-

plementing interview data with observational data. According to Dean

and Whyte (1969), "the researcher is constantly relating the sentiments

expressed to the behavior he observes--or would expect to observe--in

the situation under discussion" (p. 109). The young children in par-

ticular had difficulties expressing themselves, especially in response

to abstract questions such as, "What is reading?" The researcher

evaluated a child's responses by considering them in light of what she

already knew about the child, by comparing them to responses of other

children, and by comparing them with the child's speech messages and

behaviors in other situations (Dean & Whyte, 1969). The two sources of

data provided a means whereby the researcher could evaluate the quality

of data collected by either method.


Making an Ethnographic Record


The data collected through observations, interviews, and unobtru-

sive measures were in the form of reading-related behavior, speech mes-

sages, and use of materials. The major portion of the data were recorded





-60-


in written form. Written records included fieldnotes, transcribed

interviews, and a research journal.

During observations the researcher took fieldnotes. The researcher's

goal was to record observed activity in as much detail as possible. She

attempted to record children's and teacher's language verbatim and their

actions in specific, concrete terms. These fieldnotes represented what

Spradley (1980) called a "condensed account" (p. 69) of what actually

occurred. That is, due to the speed and complexity of classroom activity,

the researcher typically recorded phrases and unconnected sentences

which would help her recall the details of observed events. Following

observation periods, such as when children went to a special class, the

researcher filled in details to create an "expanded account" (p. 70).

Still striving to use concrete descriptions and verbatim language, the

researcher indicated in the fieldnotes when she was directly quoting,

paraphrasing, or summarizing. Once the expanded account was completed,

the fieldnotes were typed into a formal protocol. Although the majority

of the fieldnotes represented classroom activity, a portion of each

fieldnote record contained the researcher's reactions to and impressions

of observed events. In recording these subjective comments the re-

searcher used brackets to separate them from the record of classroom

activity. Also in the fieldnote record the researcher sometimes in-

cluded questions she wanted to ask the teacher or the children. These

questions, like other subjective remarks, were bracketed.

Other data recorded in fieldnotes were descriptions of children's

completed assignments. The researcher often reproduced portions of ditto

sheets and workbook pages in the fieldnotes, particularly when children





-61-


were having difficulty with a task. Other diagrams recorded in field-

notes were classroom maps, chalkboard work, and examples of children's

writing, such as love notes and Christmas cards.

Formal interviews with the teacher, the children, and the teacher in

the other half of the room were tape recorded. All recorded interviews

were then transcribed and filed separately from fieldnote records.

Another written record was the research journal. "Like a diary,"

wrote Spradley (1980), "this journal will contain a record of experiences,

ideas, fears, mistakes, confusions, breakthroughs, and problems that

arise during fieldwork" (p. 71). In the journal the researcher kept a

record of the process of gaining entry to the classroom, dating and de-

scribing each experience with the teacher, the principal, and the re-

quired paperwork. Also in the journal were the researcher's musings

about her research goals and methods. Outlines for meetings with the

researcher's advisor were written in the journal as were the advisor's

comments. The researcher's reactions to observed events were recorded

in the fieldnotes rather than the journal in order to keep observations

and interpretations together. As the study progressed the researcher

recorded more subjective comments in the fieldnotes than in the journal.

It was found that recording these kinds of comments in the fieldnotes

was more convenient than switching to the journal.

Fieldnotes, transcribed interviews, and the research journal were

the written records of data collected in this study. As such they pro-

vided the substance for data analysis which was an ongoing process

comprised of several phases.





-62-


Analyzing Ethnographic Data


Just as the methodology was designed to be compatible with the

social-interaction perspective and suitable for the investigation of

children's definitions of reading, the choice of analytic strategies was

influenced by "the general purpose of the research, the nature of the

research problem or question, and the theoretical perspectives that in-

form the research problem and intrigue the researcher" (Goetz & LeCompte,

1981, p. 64). Goetz and LeCompte further noted that "the nature of the

problem or the way in which the research goal is defined is, of course,

the most significant of all design constraints" (p. 64). In this study

the researcher's goal was to discover definitions of reading constructed

by children in one classroom. To achieve this goal, many hours of

direct observation and interviewing took place. The researcher's task

in analyzing these data has been described as analogous to "putting a

jigsaw puzzle together" (Smith & Geoffrey, 1968, p. 15). The researcher

conducted a systematic search for order and understanding by "working

with data, organizing it, breaking it into manageable units, synthesizing

it, searching for patterns, discovering what is important and what is

to be learned, and deciding what you will tell others" (Bogdan & Biklen,

1982, p. 145). Spradley's (1980) model of data analysis was used to

guide the search for patterns in the hundreds of pages of data col-

lected in this study.

The process of data analysis was ongoing and consisted of four

phases. Each phase related to a type of question the researcher posed

and a type of observation she conducted. The types of questions and





-63-


observations, which are the basic unit of ethnographic inquiry, have

been discussed in a previous section. A cycle of questioning, collect-

ing, and analyzing was repeated throughout the study. The phases of

data analysis are described below:

1. Domain analysis was the first phase of the search for patterns.

During this phase the researcher identified categories of meaning, or

what Spradley (1980) called cultural domains. These categories were

discovered by reading the protocols with specific questions in mind.

Spradley identified nine types of questions which are useful in classi-

fying seemingly unique objects and events into categories. These ques-

tions include Are there kinds of things here? Are there places here?

Are there parts of things here? Are there results of things here? Are

there reasons for things? Are there uses for things? Are there ways to

do things? Are there stages in things? Are there characteristics of

things? These questions suggested categories but were not meant to

restrict the researcher's identification of categories. Examples of

some of the earliest domains were Kinds of Teacher Questions and

Places in Which Children Read. The search for domains continued

throughout the study. The researcher formulated structural questions

based on identified domains and made focused observations in order to

answer the questions. For example, related to the domain Kinds of

Teacher Questions the researcher asked, "What are all the kinds of

questions the teacher asks?" Observations focused on finding as many

answers to the question as the researcher could identify.

2. Taxonomic analysis was the second phase of data analysis.

During this phase the researcher analyzed domains to find out how they





-64-


were organized. A taxonomy reveals the organization of domains by

showing the relationships among the terms inside the domain. Taxonomic

analysis also helps the researcher to relate domains to one another.

For example, the domain Kinds of Questions was a very large domain

which included teacher questions and student questions. Within each of

the two levels of student and teacher questions were still more levels.

Within the domain of student questions, for instance, were student-

student questions and student-teacher questions. Within these levels

were more levels, such as technical assistance questions ("How do you

spell 'who'?"), directions questions ("What do you do on this page?"),

and socializing questions ("Wanna play school?"). In developing

taxonomies the researcher attempted to fit together the pieces of the

scene (domains) already identified. Associated with taxonomic analysis

were contrast questions which led to selected observations.

3. Componential analysis is a search for the characteristics of

identified domains and of the terms within domains. If an object or

event has meaning in the setting, it has certain attributes regularly

associated with it. For instance, if directions questions were a type

of student-student question in the classroom, there were certain charac-

teristics which defined this kind of question. The goal of componential

analysis was to determine whether identified domains and terms within

domains were distinct elements in the setting under investigation.

4. Theme analysis involved the search for a theme which tied

together the identified parts of the scene. During this phase the

researcher looked for meanings which recurred across domains. Although

a theme may not have applied to all parts of the scene, it had to have





-65-


a high degree of generality and serve to link at least several

domains.

The analytic strategies utilized in this study constituted a

systematic, rigorous organizational process. Data were analyzed to

identify categories of objects and events related to children's defini-

tions of reading. Further analysis revealed relationships among iden-

tified categories and the relationship of the parts to the whole class-

room scene. Throughout all phases of data analysis, questions emerged

which served to direct the researcher's observations of the scene. The

interactive nature of data collection and analysis is a fundamental

principle of the research model utilized in this study. In the final

two sections of this chapter these two topics related to data collection

and analysis will be discussed: (a) researcher qualifications and

biases and (b) validity of the researcher's findings.



Researcher Qualifications and Biases


Since the qualitative researcher is the key research instrument,

qualifications and biases which may influence data collection are impor-

tant to consider. Wolcott (1976) identified several criteria for

judging the adequacy of an ethnographer. Because the research approach

utilized in this study "borrows generously from ethnographic techniques"

(Wolcott, 1976, p. 30) and was utilized to identify participant per-

spectives, as would an ethnographer, Wolcott's list of qualifications

were considered to be relevant. According to Wolcott, the researcher

must be a "sensitive and perceptive observer, at once sympathetic,





-66-


skeptical, objective, and inordinately curious." Furthermore, the

researcher requires "physical stamina, emotional stability, and per-

sonal flexibility" as well as "the skills of the story-teller and writer"

(p. 28). The most important qualification is experience conducting

fieldwork. Although cross-cultural fieldwork is considered by many to

be a mandatory experience for an ethnographer, Wolcott suggested that

one could substitute experience doing microethnography in "education-

ally-relevant events and settings" (p. 29) for cross-cultural research.

Although the researcher's flexibility and writing skill will have to be

judged by the reader, the following experiences related to Wolcott's

criteria are listed below:

1. The researcher was a classroom teacher for four years, two years

at the secondary level and two years at the elementary level. At the

secondary level the researcher taught reading and language arts.

2. The researcher earned an M.Ed. in the area of reading.

3. The researcher has completed coursework for a Ph.D. in cur-

riculum and instruction, including courses in elementary curriculum and

curriculum development. Specializing in reading, the researcher com-

pleted extensive coursework in this area.

4. The researcher has taken two courses which provided a theoreti-

cal and practical background in qualitative research. In addition to

the readings required by these courses, the researcher has read exten-

sively in the area of qualitative research foundations and methods as

indicated by entries in the reference list of this report.

5. The researcher has completed two qualitative studies in elemen-

tary school classrooms. A report of each study was written, and one

was presented at a national conference.





-67-


6. The researcher has gained additional experience as an elemen-

tary classroom observer by supervising student teachers over a two-year

period.

7. The researcher has worked to develop her writing skills by

preparing manuscripts for publication and for presentation at state,

regional, and national conferences.

In addition to meeting certain criteria for conducting qualitative

research Wolcott suggested that the fieldworker "needs to grapple with

his own 'underlying assumptions' and recognize the kinds of evi-

dence he is most attracted to in building his account" (p. 27). Schwartz

and Jacobs (1979) referred to this process as "true confessions" (p. 58).

In recognition of the potential impact of the researcher's values and

biases on the nature of the data collected and on project outcomes, the

following list of relevant beliefs is provided. By listing these be-

liefs the researcher demonstrates awareness of them and provides the

reader with a basis for evaluation of the study (Ross, 1978).

1. The researcher objects to the widespread practice of teaching

reading as a sequence of subskills isolated from the purposeful reading

of various types of text. Related to this is the researcher's concern

over the domination of reading instruction by the teacher's manuals of

the basal series. Although the researcher believes that there is nothing

inherently wrong with basal readers, she would prefer to see instruction

reflect closer attention to children's language and experiences.

2. The researcher is particularly concerned about the kinds of

reading instruction provided to low-achieving children. Typically these





-68-


children receive repeated drill on isolated reading subskills. It is

believed that often this instruction does not serve them well.

3. The researcher believes that classrooms are complex, dynamic,

multi-dimensional environments in which children and teachers influence

and shape one another's behaviors.

4. The researcher assumes that children's perceptions of reading

are influenced by numerous factors, and their perceptions may not always

be congruent with the teacher's perceptions.


Validity


In qualitative research validity is a central concern (Erickson,

1979; Hymes, 1982; Rist, 1977). According to LeCompte and Goetz (1982),

"Establishing validity requires determining the extent to which conclu-

sions effectively represent empirical reality and assessing whether

constructs devised by researchers represent or measure the categories

of human experience that occur" (p. 32). That is, the researcher strives

to "improve the fit between the model and the reality" (Lancy, 1978,

p. 125). Some of the steps taken to ensure the validity of the study's

findings have already been discussed. For instance, the long period of

data collection enabled the researcher to become familiar with the

scene and its participants. Also, the use of several methods of data

collection provided opportunities to compare data and to probe deeply

into participants' perspectives. Another procedure the researcher

utilized to contribute to the validity of the findings was to search

for negative examples of hypothesized components of the model of





-69-


children's perceptions of reading. Becker (1970) summarized this

process:

After constructing a model specifying the relationships
among various elements of this part of the organization,
the observer seeks greater accuracy by successively refining
the model to take account of evidence which does not fit
his previous formulation; by searching for negative cases
(items of evidence which run counter to the relationships
hypothesized in the model) which might force such revision;
and by searching intensively for the interconnections in
vivo of the various elements he has conceptualized from-his
data. (p. 34)

Yet another procedure for establishing the validity of the researcher's

findings was to discuss them with some of the classroom participants.

By sharing findings with the teacher, the researcher received valuable

feedback on her interpretations of participants' perspectives.

In the next two chapters the researcher's findings are described

and discussed. Descriptions of the children's definitions of reading

and evidence to support the existence of these definitions are presented

in the first of the two findings chapters. In the second chapter

children's definitions are explained in terms of a factor which emerged

as a powerful force in definition construction, the teacher's classroom

practice.














CHAPTER III
CHILDREN'S DEFINITIONS OF READING



The goal of this study was to uncover the definitions of reading

constructed by first-grade children in the low and high reading groups

in one classroom. As previously discussed, the researcher adopted a

social-interaction perspective wherein it was assumed that individuals

construct definitions of reading through their interactions in social

contexts. In this study the researcher focused on interactions which

took place within one classroom throughout the school day. More speci-

fically, observations were focused on children's speech messages about

reading, their reading-related behavior, and their use of reading

materials. These kinds of concrete phenomena served as indicators of

children's definitions of reading.

The collected data were analyzed into domains or categories accord-

ing to similarities among recorded events. Domains which proved to be

particularly helpful in revealing reading definitions included Kinds of

Reading Miscues, Kinds of Things Children Do with Chosen Books, Kinds

of Statements Children Make About Books and Assignments, Kinds of State-

ments the Teacher Makes About Children's Reading, and Kinds of State-

ments Kindergarten Teachers Make About Children's Reading. Taxonomies

were constructed by integrating data from different domains. That is,

data which indicated a particular definition of reading were drawn from


-70-





-71-


across domains and organized into new domains which represented defini-

tions of reading. Taxonomies were also constructed to represent the

reading-related behavior of individual children. The purpose of this

analytic exercise was to verify the existence of identified definitions

through careful examination of the behavior of each child who seemed to

use a particular definition. As children's definitions are described,

data from the taxonomies will be provided to support and illustrate the

definitions. It should be noted that illustrations included were

selected from among many examples and do not represent the sole indi-

cators of a particular definition.

Among the studied children in this classroom, those in the highest

and lowest reading groups, there were six definitions of reading (see

Table 1). No single definition was shared by all children. Some

definitions were peculiar to one group while other definitions were

shared by members of both groups. Most children constructed and utilized

more than one definition of reading.

The first three definitions of reading--reading is saying words

correctly, reading is schoolwork, reading is a source of status--were

common among low group children. The schoolwork and status definitions

were also utilized by two girls in the high group. What did these three

definitions have in common? Readers utilizing these definitions seemed

to view reading as an externally imposed task. While this does not mean

that the readers did not experience some pleasure associated with

reading, the pleasure was related to pronouncing the words correctly

(reading is saying words), getting the job done (reading is schoolwork),

or gaining recognition (reading is a source of status). Children








-72-


a C -*- In ( 0 0
O a Nr- OU. L. E
U) )i N -- U <) E
(0 *r- 0 i- *r- C 3 0
'--0-I .-J- C 0 I---


C M.0 U
U CU r-r-

r- 0 ) 0 0 S.
LU -) X: = I-


cn

>U)
Do'- r-

*r- 0 *r-
"0 in 4J

C to


*r-4
(aU


*r- S

Uc3


Un
cm
n r_
-) C
*- o *r-


C>
9- t--
n S- m

0 2 U










r 3: O v
r 0 0)


u a..-







r S-
*r- O
"O or}










04-
0)3

Ct
*r- L







a u
- 0
(0 -c










"o

C U



U) > o


*r-



4-
0
bO

O

















0
4-




*r-
C:



i--I

-c



0)




o-







3
0

.J
-I





-73-


utilizing these three definitions were not likely to engage in private

experiences with books or to choose to spend time with books under

free-choice conditions. These definitions were associated with the

view of reading as a required task.

The next three definitions--reading is a way to learn things,

reading is a private pleasure, reading is a social activity--were

utilized almost exclusively by the high group girls. Unlike the first

three definitions, these reflected a view of reading as a personally

meaningful activity. Children utilizing these definitions sought out

books during free-choice periods and were, in general, busier with

books than children utilizing the first three definitions.



Reading Is Saying Words Correctly


Perhaps the clearest definition of reading to identify in this

classroom was that reading is seeing and saying words. This definition

was constructed and utilized by all children in the lowest reading

group. Not only did the definition serve to guide their reading be-

havior during reading group time, but it influenced the nature of their

reading in other classroom contexts. Although high group children

referred to the importance of learning words, there was a clear dis-

tinction between the two groups' words-based definition of reading.

While high group children viewed knowing words as part of a larger

process, the low group children viewed saying the words correctly as

an end in itself. For these children reading was an oral performance

involving calling out words. Often the meaning of a word or the sense





-74-


of a series of words was ignored. Saying the words was more important

to low group children than finding meaning in written language.

During reading group sessions, the majority of low group children's

talk was in the form of answers to the teacher's questions. However,

children's spontaneous questions and comments frequently focused on

saying words. A standard part of the reading lesson involved reading

cards on which the teacher had printed words from the pre-primer. Much

of the children's talk about reading was related to words on cards.

For instance, children often asked if they could say the words. Such

statements were of the form, "We gonna do our words?" or "I wish we

could say the words. I wish we could say the words every day." The

children also asked the teacher if they could get new words and asked

one another if they had a particular word, as in the following example:

Lizzie says to each child in the group: Don't you got
"no"? (She holds up a card with "no" printed on it.)
Sharon: Everybody got "no"!
Lizzie: Let me see something 'cause I might have two
"nots."
Sharon: Teacher, I don't have "not." (She repeats
this.)
Teacher to Lizzie: I think you're the only one who
has it.
Teacher asks group: How do you spell "not"?

Lizzie's attention to words even extended to the researcher's activi-

ties. During reading group she observed the researcher writing and

remarked to the other children, "She's doing our words. She's writing

our words down."

Low group children also talked about the words they had at home.

Their comments included, "I got these at home," "My mamma gots lots of

words," "My mamma showed me words on cards like this, and I read them."





-75-


The children also talked about how many cards they had, with such com-

ments as, "I got a lot of words! My pin (paper clip) can't fit on!"

These children exhibited other behaviors during their reading group

time which indicated their concern for saying words and for saying them

correctly. For example, they asked questions about words, such as,

"Ain't this 'hide'?" and "What is this word?" In addition, some of the

children were quick to criticize those who said words incorrectly, as

the following fieldnote excerpt illustrates:

The group reads a sentence in unison: This is the park.
(Some voices say "the" instead of "this.")
Lizzie: Teacher, they don't do it right!
Sharon: Uh-huh! This is the park!
Lizzie: Not the first time they didn't!
Teacher: We're all learning to read here Lizzie, and
people do it at different times.

Yet another example of the children's words-based definition occurred

when the teacher announced that the group would skip a page in their

workbook:

Teacher: I'm going to skip 20. You already know
"I am." We can skip this. Turn to 21 and fold it
over.
Sharon: Why not this page? (She looks at a page with
an airplane on it and no print.) Oh, it ain't got no
words on it.

The children also indicated their "saying words" definition of reading

by calling out words before the teacher arrived at the reading group

table. One child would pick up the pile of cards and show a card to

each child at the table. The group cooperated as the student held up

a card and asked, "What's this say?" When a child hesitated on a word,

others eagerly called it out.

The low group children's behavior outside of the reading group pro-

vided further evidence that they defined reading as saying words





-76-


correctly. These children neither chose books as often nor spent as

much time with books as did the children in the high group. This was

not surprising given their definition of reading. Since they defined

reading as saying the words correctly, and since they could not say many

of the words they encountered, they did not view reading books as an

attractive free-time activity. While the children chose books less often

than the high group children, their interactions with print and their

comments about reading indicated a words-based definition.

Several of the children read individual words aloud at their desks

much as they read word cards during reading group. In the following

fieldnote excerpt, one child read her cards and then showed them to the

child next to her:

During sharing time, Lizzie returns to the room from her
remedial tutoring session. She sits down and looks at each
of her three word cards. She whispers the three words:
"here," "yes," "not." Then she turns to Melissa and shows
the cards one at a time. Melissa stares blankly.

In a similar incident, Lizzie and Sharon read a list of rhyming words

on a commercially produced chart:

Lizzie: Sharon, we're gonna say some of these, okay?
(She points to each word and pronounces it as Sharon
watches.)

Lizzie's interactions with books were guided by her words-based

definition of reading. For instance, she was observed reciting words

from the pre-primer while turning the pages of trade books from the book

table. She clearly enunciated words she knew, despite the fact that

these words were not to be found in the trade books. In the following

fieldnote excerpts Lizzie demonstrates her definition of reading as an oral

performance:





-77-


Lizzie holds a book. She opens it and says to the re-
searcher: This is a working book. A Big Bird working
book. See, you read and then circle. She points to words
in the book while saying: Bill-is-not-here. (These words
are not in this book.)

In a similar incident, Lizzie called out a number of words from the pre-

primer:

On Mike's desk there are word cards which belong to a
rhyming game. Lizzie walks over, touches "run" and says:
Run. Run, run, said Lad. Run, run, said Jill. Run, run,
said Ben. Run, run, said Bill.

Other children in the low group utilized a words-based definition

of reading. Mike, for instance, would only read out loud, standing by

an adult. The teacher commented, "I think Mike thinks he isn't reading

unless he's saying the words aloud to someone." As he read orally, Mike

concentrated on saying words rather than making sense of the words he

was saying. On one occasion, he stood next to the researcher and read

from the book, Let's Go, Dear Dragon. He misread a number of words and

never corrected himself:

Mike: Get want. Get want. (Get out. Get out.) No
one can gets (guess) where you are. That it not go.
(That is not good.)

Jason's words-based definition of reading and his confusion about

written language were reflected in his experience writing and reading

a Christmas card. In this incident the researcher may have (uninten-

tionally) indicated to Jason that there was a problem with his card:

Jason to researcher: I'll read you my story. Merry
Christmas Mom Dad I love are I can buy my. (Jason looks
up at the researcher.)
Researcher: What do you want to say?
Jason: I don't know.
Researcher: You were probably thinking of something
you wanted to say to your Mom and Dad.





-78-


Jason: I don't know. I'll erase from here. (He erases
"are," "but," and "my.")
Researcher: What do you want to say to your Mom and Dad?
Jason: I could say Happy Christmas. How do you spell
Happy? (He writes the word "Happy" in front of the word
"Merry," closes the card, and draws a Christmas tree on
the back.)

After having copied "Merry Christmas Mom (and) Dad" from the blackboard,

Jason wrote and then read a series of words which did not make sense.

When the researcher asked, "What do you want to say?" Jason seemed to

realize that something was wrong, but he did not know how to correct his

error. Another incident involving Jason further demonstrated his defini-

tion of reading:

Jason to researcher: I only have two smilies left. This
and this. (He taps his reading workbook and his math book.)
As it is Friday, the day students read a book for a smilie,
the researcher asks: What book will you read today?
Jason: Uh, prob'ly this one. (He touches a coloring book
which supplements the pre-primer.) Maybe this. (He reaches
for a trade book which also goes with the pre-primer.) This
is the new one.
Researcher: When you get ready to read it, will you get
me so I can hear you?
Jason: Well, I can't even read it.
Researcher: You can't?
Jason: No, you have to teach me. Read it to me, then I
can read it back to you.

Jason seemed to be equating reading with saying the words correctly--

something he could only do by repeating the words after an adult had

read them.

During whole-class phonics activities the children often demonstrated

their words-based definition of reading. When working in the phonics

books, the teacher focused attention on sounds of letters and correct

word-calling. Sharon's behavior reflected this child's definition of

reading:





-79-


The teacher calls on Sharon, who has been wildly waving her
arm to be allowed to read a sentence. Robin, who sits next
to Sharon, prompts her on each word. Robin whispers the
word, Sharon calls it out, loudly, and looks triumphantly at
the teacher after each word. After this sentence, Sharon
points to the next sentence and quietly says: Jan will fish
the pan said the ___ The sentence says: Jan will fix the
rip in the She waits for Robin to fill in the blank,
and then copies the word.

Sharon's concern for saying the words correctly was shared by Jason.

Jason, who frequently complained, "I can't read this thing!" became

excited when he recognized his name in the phonics book. He called out,

"Jason! Mrs. Saunders! That's Jason! My name!" The teacher responded,

"Yes, it is. Jason's going to read it because it begins with his name."

Immediately Jason claimed, "I can't!" and then again pointed out his

name, the one word he could read in the sentence: "Mrs. Saunders, see?

Jason, Jason!"

The children's responses to interview questions designed to uncover

their definitions of reading indicated that they defined reading as

saying words correctly. For example, when asked, "What kinds of read-

ing do you do?" several children responded by reciting words from the

pre-primer:

Researcher: Tell me something that you read.
Sharon: All right. I can read, "Jill and Nan hide at the
park ." and I can read a book that says, "Ben and Ted
will run to the park."

When asked other questions about her reading, Sharon responded by re-

citing story lines in a slow, halting voice as a beginning decoder

might. After she announced that her mother had taught her to read,

the following exchange took place:

Researcher: How did your mamma teach you to read? What
did she do?
Sharon: She told me to read, to say, "Boy meet girl," and
I say, "Boy meet girl," and then she told me to say the
rest of it. .





-80-


Sharon's remarks provided further evidence of her view of reading as

saying the words.

The children's descriptions of the best readers in the class also

reflected their prevailing definition of reading. Children said they

knew who the best readers were because they saw and/or heard them read.

Good readers were people who "do the sounds" or "sound out the hard

words." When asked, "What do I have to be doing when I'm reading?"

Richard responded, "You gotta be talking."

Finally, children made numerous remarks during the day which pro-

vided evidence for the existence of a words-based definition of reading.

For instance, their comments about assignments were sometimes revealing:

Researcher asks Richard: Tell me, Richard, why does
Mrs. Saunders make you do this page?
Lizzie overhears and answers: Cuz we learn.
Researcher: What do you learn?
Lizzie: To read--see (she points), this says "big" and
this says "little."
Richard points to "yes": And this.

Several days later Richard looked at the researcher's fieldnotes,

pointed to the words "go," "I," "Jason," "Lad," and "is" and read each

as he pointed. He then said, "You have Jason a lot. And there's Mike.

I know a lot of words you know." The researcher asked, "What do you

know?" Richard replied, "Duck, cat, get, not, Ted, Ben, Bill, yes, run,

duck--did I already say that?" Richard again demonstrated his words-

based definition when he tried to read the first words in a trade book--

the small print which presented copyright information. After staring

at the print for several seconds, he took the book to Mike and pointed

to the words, saying, "What does this say?" Mike replied, "You don't

gotta read that part."





-81-


Children's remarks about other children's behavior also revealed

their definitions of reading, as illustrated in the following incident:

Jason is kneeling at the book table with The Golden Goose
open in front of him. He reads: You-do-you-do-not--
Bonnie interrupts: You don't know how to read! (She
looks at the page and reads aloud.) You do not like--
(Jason closes the book and holds it close to his face.)
Lizzie to Jason: You can't read those words.

The low group children's reading-related behavior was guided by

a word-based definition of reading. In this classroom the children

demonstrated an acute awareness of words and a great concern for saying

them correctly. Their definition was reflected in their behavior

throughout the school day, and may have restricted these children in

the other definitions they could construct. That is, if a child de-

fined reading as saying words correctly, and if he/she was not able to

read many words, the child was not likely to construct a definition of

reading as, for instance, a private pleasure, as did most of the high

group children. In this classroom, low group children did not con-

struct such definitions.

The high group children were clearly aware of words, but their

reading-related behavior was guided by other definitions of reading.

In response to interview questions, the high group children pointed out

the importance of sounding out words and practicing words in order to

be a good reader. For example, when asked, "What do people have to do

to be good readers?" Robin replied, "Well, they can practice and study

their words a lot." To the same question Jane replied, "They have to

sound out the words and get their parents to help them read the words."

However, high group children also talked about a variety of purposes and





-82-


reasons for reading. Knowing words seemed to be part of the machinery

of reading for fun, reading for one's job, reading to learn, and reading

to identify things in the environment. While the words-based definition

helped explain much of the low group's reading behavior, it did not have

the same explanatory power for the behavior of the high group children.



Reading Is Schoolwork


Most of the low group children and two of the high group children

defined reading as schoolwork. This definition was associated with

reading-related comments and behaviors which seemed to announce, "We

do it because we're supposed to, but we'd rather be having fun." For

these children, reading was work, just as math and handwriting were work.

Reading was just another "smilie" to be completed in order to move on

to free-choice activities.

An early indication of the work definition was that many children

did not choose books during free-choice periods. Although these children

sometimes chose books when given the choice between a book or drawing

paper, they did not select books when given a wider choice of activities.

Further, when some children discovered that instead of choosing a book

during attendance and lunch count, they could begin their morning

smilies, they abandoned books altogether. Jason and Tommy exemplified

this behavior. The two boys began their morning work as soon as they

could in order to finish it as early as possible. Tommy stood at his

desk as he did his smilies. It seemed that he thought standing up gave

him quicker access to assistance and hence completion of his assignments.





-83-


Frequently he asked whoever was closest to him at the moment, "What's

this word?" and "How do you do this?" Often Tommy exclaimed, "Finished!"

as he closed his folder, slapped his pencil down on the desk, and

quickly moved on to play games on the floor.

Jason's behavior was similar to Tommy's, but Jason was more vocal

about his feelings toward work. He excitedly spread the news to his

classmates when he found that there would be no smilies one morning.

On another occasion, when the researcher asked why the teacher had given

him a reading worksheet, he replied, "To do our work." On another

occasion he spoke of several subject areas as if they all amounted to

the same thing--work. His comments were prompted by the researcher

asking him what kinds of reading he did in school. He answered by

listing the smilies he typically did, including math. To Jason school

subjects seemed to be interchangeable. As with Tommy, Jason preferred

to be on the floor with games and puzzles rather than at his desk

"working." According to the two boys' kindergarten teachers, they

behaved similarly during the previous school year. Neither would

choose books during free time; both enjoyed playing with toys and

games. For these boys, school seemed to be defined in terms of work

and play. Reading was clearly perceived within the work component of

classroom life.

Other evidence to support the existence of a "reading is work"

definition came from interviews with the children. All of the low group

children talked about reading as something people have to learn how to

do. When asked, "Why do people read?" they gave the following kinds

of responses:





-84-


'Cause they want to learn how to read.
So when you grow up you can know how to read.
'Cause they don't know what things say and they can learn
how to read.

The low group children reported that people read to learn how to read.

In other words, reading is work one does when one is young in order to

be able to do something (read) when one is older. Some children used

the word "work" when talking about reading. For instance, when the re-

searcher asked Joseph, "Why isn't anybody reading now?" he answered,

"'Cause they finished their work." Tommy said several times that the

way to become a better reader was to work. Having discovered that many

children defined reading as work shed light on the behavior of low group

children. The definition also helped to explain why the children did

not favor books during free-choice periods.

Low group children were not alone in defining reading as school-

work. Two of the high group children also utilized this definition.

Tracey and Sally stood out among high group children in their apparent

lack of interest in books. Once it became clear that the schoolwork

definition explained some of the other children's behavior, the re-

searcher considered the possibility that it might apply to Tracey and

Sally. Indeed, this definition was clearly one of several constructed

by the two girls. As with the low group children, these girls did not

often choose books during free-choice times. During periods when chil-

dren were expected to read, the girls would busy themselves with books.

For instance, they would go to the book table, select several books,

and return to their seats. On one occasion Tracey put the books inside

her desk and turned to the boy next to her to say, "Go get your folder."





-85-


The next morning she returned the books to the book table. Sally en-

gaged in a similar activity of carrying four books to her desk and then

quietly reciting, "Eeny, meeny, miny, mo" over them until the teacher

began the morning's lesson.

Another indication of the girls' definition of reading was the kind

of books they selected from the classroom book table and bookshelves.

Both girls often chose basal readers and teachers' editions of basals.

These books, some of them more than fifteen years old, had been placed

among trade books, encyclopedias, dictionaries, and magazines on the

table and in the shelves. Tracey and Sally chose them but were not ob-

served reading them. Sally found an old basal reader in the library and

checked it out. The girls' book choices suggested that reading was

associated with teacher-directed lessons and teacher-selected materials.

Reading was work one did in school with teachers.

Other evidence of the girls' definition of reading was their be-

havior during the required 30-minute reading period after lunch. During

this time the children were allowed to interact with one another but

only if books were the focus of their interactions. Whereas some chil-

dren chose to read at their desks, Sally and Tracey were most often

involved with other children during this time. A commonly observed

activity was playing school:

Sally pulls her chair up to Donna and Shelley.
Sally: We can play school.
Donna: I'm the teacher. I'm reading the book.
Sally opens Sun and Shadow (a basal reader) and reads
aloud.
Shelley: I'm going to read you a story.
Teacher: You may choose now what you would like to play.
Sally and Shelley drop their books on Donna's lap and
dash to the playhouse.
Donna looks up: Gosh, I got all the books.





-86-


Not only did Sally define the activity as schoolwork, but she read from

a school book. When Sally was asked how people learn to read, she

talked about starting in "the first book" and going through "the dif-

ferent levels." Again, she indicated a view of reading as work one did

in school. When the work period was over, as in the school episode de-

scribed above, Sally dumped her book and headed off to play. For Sally

and Tracey and for the low group children, a schoolwork definition of

reading influenced their reading-related activities. The same set of

children shared the next definition of reading.



Reading Is a Source of Status


Analysis of the kinds of remarks children made about books and

reading in this classroom suggested a third actively utilized definition

of reading. Many of children's comments could be characterized as "look

at me" statements, or statements which served to draw the attention of

others to the speaker's activities. The following are examples of this

frequently observed kind of remark:

Lizzie: Mrs. Saunders, wanna see my book?
Joseph: This is a good story. I got so many books!
Richard: Anybody can read these old books. See? Run,
run, run.
Richard: I read that book right here and this one.
Mike: Man, I can't find no book! Oh, yeh! Just
the book I been looking' for!
Lizzie: I got me a great book!
Richard to Jason: She (teacher) said I did good!

Children always clearly announced these statements to someone or to a

group. The public nature of these self-asserting comments suggested

that not only did some children recognize the great value placed on





-87-


reading, but that they defined reading as a source of status. Inter-

actions among some of the low group boys further supported the existence

and utilization of the status definition:

Mike: Look, two new books!
Joseph: Oooo, could I have this one?
Richard: Here the good books, man!

These boys often gathered noisily at the book table. They exclaimed,

demanded, and announced their intentions for all to hear. Often they

would leave the table empty-handed, suggesting that the performance was

more important than the books themselves. The following remarks were

typical:

Mike: I'm gonna get me a good better book today!
Richard to Bonnie: Uh-uh! You ain't taking these! (He
grabs several books from her.)
Richard looks at pictures in a book: My daddy has more
cars than this. He has 'em all around the house. They
go all over the brick wall.
Mike: This was a fun book! I know what all these books
are about.

Mike's reading behavior clearly reflected the influence of the

status definition. Not only did he always read aloud, but always in

the presence of someone, usually an adult. When he read, he frequently

looked at the person or people near him as if to be sure they were

attending to him. Mike was one of the few children who regularly ap-

proached the researcher. Often he wanted to read aloud. At other times

he confidently explained things to the researcher, as in the following

incidents:

Mike: Look at this book about animals! Look at these
dinosaurs here! (He holds up the books.) Finally! I
found a good book. This is football. (It's a magazine.)
Just sign it, and you go to football practice. Right
here, see? (He points to a coupon.) Name, order, sign,





-88-


care. (The words are name, organization, state, city.)
You like swimming? Look--just sign up and you go swimming!
You like soccer? Just sign and you go.

Researcher sits by the book table. Mike walks to the table
and begins picking up books. As he picks one up he says:
See this one? This is an easy one. I can read this one.

Mike's reading-related behavior and comments indicated that he was

attuned to the recognition and status given to readers in this classroom.

He went so far as to claim that he was the best reader in the class,

the only low group child to do so. Reading for Mike was a public act.

It was associated with asserting his superior position among peers--a

means of achieving high status in the classroom community.

Although Joseph and Richard also utilized a status definition of

reading, they exhibited the definition differently from Mike. Joseph

and Richard were unskilled word-callers. They knew many fewer words

than Mike and consequently did not often loudly broadcast their oral

reading, as did Mike. Nevertheless, the boys demonstrated the status

definition in other behaviors. Both frequently grabbed books from other

children, for no apparent reason other than to assert their superior

positions as the ones who had the desirable books. They also were

observed to carry piles of books to their desks, where they would often

sit unopened while the boys played with friends at neighboring desks.

Evidently, the public display of choosing books from the book table

was more important than anything they might do with the books once they

arrived at their seats. This is not to say that the boys were never

actively engaged with books at their seats. But even in these situa-

tions reading often became a competitive enterprise, as this excerpt

from fieldnotes illustrates:





-89-


Richard turns the pages of Clifford's Riddles.
Richard to the researcher: I bet this dog will pull the
building.
Researcher: He will?
Richard: He's really big, see? (He shows a picture at the
beginning of the story.)
Joseph looks over and says: That ain't the same dog!
Richard: Uh-huh! Watch, he's gonna change. Want me to
show you the whole book?

Low group children were not alone in defining reading as a source

of status. Tracey and Sally clearly used this definition to guide their

behavior in public contexts. As discussed earlier, these two girls did

not often choose to read during free-choice periods. However, when the

teacher announced that people who finished reading 10 books and re-

cording the titles would get a sticker and a candy cane, Tracey and

Sally became very busy with books. Sally immediately took three books

from the book table and, returning to her seat, rapidly turned through

the pages of each book. Although she turned each page, she could not

possibly have read the pages as quickly as she turned them. Soon Sally

was standing, booklist in hand, by the teacher. After showing her list

to the teacher, she walked to the researcher and said, "Ms. Bondy, I

was the first one to finish the whole page." The researcher responded,

"All 10 books?" Sally replied, "Yeh, the first one."

During this time, Tracey sat at her desk, a pile of books in one

corner. She hastily turned pages and recorded titles. Tracey appeared

to have orchestrated a more efficient system than Sally, as she had

other children transporting books for her:

Robin to Tracey: You should read this poem book. It's
got lots of easy poems.
Tracey: I'll read it if you put this one back.





-90-


Lynn presents a book to Tracey: Tracey, read this book,
it's cinch. It's about Stanley, and you'll love it.
Tracey looks up: No, I don't want to.

As Tracey added books to her list, Sally worked on her second list.

Lynn provided periodic news bulletins:

Lynn to Sally: Tracey only has three more books and she
gots them all.

Lynn to Mrs. Saunders: Mrs. Saunders, Tracey only has
to write the book, and she'll be done.

Having recorded the tenth title, Tracey closed her folder and dashed to

Mrs. Saunders to announce, "I'm finished." She chose a red candy cane

from the bag and promptly displayed it to Sally and Robin.

By bringing books to sharing time, these girls and other children

revealed their use of reading to gain status. In front of the whole

class, children displayed books they had brought from home. Not all

children were operating under the status definition; some children were

clearly more attuned to reading as a pleasurable experience or as a

way to learn things, as will be discussed later. However, Tracey and

Sally were guided by their definition of reading as a high-status

activity. In public settings which provided opportunities for recogni-

tion, these girls, like the low group children, engaged in reading and

reading-related activities. Tracey's response to the question, "What

is reading?" further clarified the status definition. She said, "Like

you look at a book, then you write it down in the folder, and then the

next day you could read another book." Only by recording book titles

could a student complete the list in the folder and become the object of

teacher and peer attention. Reading was viewed as an activity done with

the promise of praise, reward, and public recognition.





-91-


Reading Is a Way to Learn Things


When interviewed, high group children talked about many more pur-

poses and reasons for reading than low group children. These girls

pointed out that reading was useful to people for a range of reasons.

One reason for reading was to find out about things in one's environ-

ment. In the following excerpts from interviews, Meg, Robin, and Ellen

referred to reading as a way to learn things:

Researcher: Tell me what kinds of things people read in
this classroom.
Meg: Um, school books.
Researcher: What do you mean when you say school books?
Meg: I mean like reading group books.
Researcher: Oh, so sometimes they read those. What else?
Meg: Um, their own books they bring from home.
Researcher: Other things?
Meg: Yes. Sometimes they read like that box right there:
"The Scott Land Clean of Fine Protection Papers."
Researcher: So sometimes people read things that are
written on boxes. Other things?
Meg: Yes, like names, over there. They might read all the
names on the wall there and then make a pretend book with
all the names. Like this book right here. (She picks it up
and reads it.)
Researcher: Why do you think people read, Meg?
Meg: Well, sometimes they read for working. And sometimes
they read for playing. And sometimes they read really for
teaching people. Sometimes they read to find out things,
like the pages in math and the pages in handwriting. And
sometimes they read to find the days, like here. (She
touches the calendar.) Like Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday,
Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday.

Researcher: What kinds of things do you read, Ellen?
Ellen: Well, in reading group I have to read level six
book. Sometimes I read books I want to when it's free
play.
Researcher: Are there any other things you read?
Ellen: At home I read a lot. My mom and me read together
when I go to bed.
Researcher: Other things?
Ellen: Well, when I'm doing my workbook, I have to read to
find out the answer. And right now. I could read off the